Differentiating types of set-level compatibility

Advances in Psychology

Volumn 118, Issue C, 1997, Pages 11-37

  Proctor, Robert W ^a   Wang, Huifang ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956782671     PISSN: 01664115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4115(97)80024-6     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Alluisi E.A., Muller Jr. P.F., and Fitts P.M. An information analysis of verbal and motor responses in a forced-paced serial task. Journal of Experimental Psychology 53 (1957) 153-158
2. Bauer D.W., and Miller J. Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 34A (1982) 367-380
3. Brainard R.W., Irby T.S., Fitts P.M., and Alluisi E.A. Some variables influencing the rate of gain of information. Journal of Experimental Psychology 63 (1962) 105-110
4. Dutta A., and Proctor R.W. Persistence of S-R compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18 (1992) 801-809
5. Dutta A., and Proctor R.W. The role of feedback in learning spatially indirect choice reaction tasks: Does it have one?. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 37th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA (1993) 1320-1324
6. Fitts P.M., and Deininger R.L. S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology 48 (1954) 483-491
7. Fitts P.M., and Seeger C.M. S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology 46 (1953) 199-210
8. Frowein H.W., and Sanders A.F. Effects of visual degradation, S-R compatibility, and foreperiod duration on choice reaction time and movement time. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 12 (1978) 106-108
9. Greenwald A.G. A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 86 (1970) 20-25
10. Hasbroucq T., Guiard Y., and Ottomani L. Principles of response determination: The list-rule model of S-R compatibility. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 28 (1990) 327-330
11. Hietanen J.K., and Rämä P. Facilitation and interference occur at different stages of processing in the Simon paradigm. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 7 (1995) 183-199
12. Kornblum S. Stimulus-response coding in four classes of stimulus-response ensembles. In: Requin J., and Stelmach G.E. (Eds). Tutorials in motor neuroscience (1991), Dordrecht, Kluwer 3-15
13. Kornblum S. Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. In: Stelmach G.E., and Requin J. (Eds). Tutorials in motor behavior II (1992), North-Holland, Amsterdam 743-777
14. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., and Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 97 (1990) 253-270
15. Kornblum S., and Lee J.-W. Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21 (1995) 855-875
16. Miller J. Discrete vs. continuous models of human information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8 (1982) 273-296
17. Proctor R.W., and Dutta A. Do the same stimulus-response relations influence choice reactions initially and after practice?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19 (1993) 922-930
18. Proctor R.W., and Dutta A. Acquisition and transfer of response selection skill. In: Healy A.F., and Bourne Jr. L.E. (Eds). Learning and memory of knowledge and skills (1995), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 300-319
19. Proctor R.W., Lu C.-H., Wang H., and Dutta A. Activation of response codes by relevant and irrelevant stimulus information. Acta Psychologica 90 (1995) 275-286
20. Proctor R.W., and Reeve T.G. Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 11 (1985) 623-639
21. Proctor R.W., Reeve T.G., and Weeks D.J. A triphasic approach to the acquisition of response-selection skill. In: Bower G.H. (Ed). The psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 26 (1990), Academic Press, New York 207-240
22. Manuscript submitted for publication. Proctor R.W., and Wang H. Set- and element-level S-R compatibility effects for different manual response sets (1996)
23. Rosenbloom P.S., and Newell A. An integrated computational model of stimulus-response compatibility and practice. In: Bower G.H. (Ed). The psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 21 (1987), Academic Press, New York 1-52
24. Schmidt R.A. Motor control and learning. 2nd ed. (1988), Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL
25. Smith G.A., and Carew M. Decision time unmasked: Individuals adopt different strategies. Australian Journal of Psychology 39 (1987) 339-351
26. Stoffels E.-J. Inhibition of concurrent processes in letter and orientation discriminations. Acta Psychologica 91 (1996) 153-173
27. Stoffels E.-J., van der Molen M.W., and Keuss P.J. An additive factors analysis of the effect(s) of location cues associated with auditory stimuli on stages of information processing. Acta Psychologica 70 (1989) 161-197
28. Teichner W.H., and Krebs M.J. Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review 81 (1974) 75-98
29. Van Duren L., and Sanders A.F. On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs. Acta Psychologica 69 (1988) 83-94
30. Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (in press). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
31. Manuscript submitted for publication. Wang H., and Proctor R.W. Two types of set-level S-R compatibility and their relations with element-level S-R compatibility (1996)
32. Weeks D.J., and Proctor R.W. Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 119 (1990) 355-366