Bimanual interference with compatible and incompatible tool transformations

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 135, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 201-208

  Massen, Cristina ^a   Sattler, Christine ^b  

^a LEIBNIZ RESEARCH CENTRE FOR WORKING ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN FACTORS   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bimanual coordination; Stimulus response compatibility; Tool transformation; Tool use

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BEHAVIOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GERMANY; HAND; HUMAN; MALE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; TOOL USE;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CUES; FEMALE; GERMANY; HAND; HUMANS; MALE; MOVEMENT; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; TOOL USE BEHAVIOR;

EID: 77957155772     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.06.007     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Adam J.J. The additivity of stimulus-response compatibility with perceptual and motor factors in a visual choice reaction time task. Acta Psychologica 2000, 105:1-7.
2. Berguer R., Smith W.D., Chung Y.H. Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surgical Endoscopy 2001, 15:1204-1207.
3. Crothers I., Gallagher A.G., McClure N., James D.T., McGuigan J. Experienced surgeons are automated to the "fulcrum effect": An ergonomic demonstration. Endoscopy 1999, 31:365-369.
4. Diedrichsen J., Grafton S., Albert N., Hazeltine E., Ivry R.B. Goal-selection and movement-related conflict during bimanual reaching movements. Cerebral Cortex 2006, 16:1729-1738.
5. Diedrichsen J., Hazeltine E., Kennerly S., Ivry R.B. Moving to directly cued locations abolishes spatial interference during bimanual actions. Psychological Science 2001, 12:493-498.
6. Diedrichsen J., Ivry R.B., Hazeltine E., Kennerly S., Cohen A. Bimanual interference associated with the selection of target locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29:64-77.
7. Franz E.A., Eliassen J.C., Ivry R.B., Gazzaniga M.S. Dissociation of spatial and temporal coupling in the bimanual movements of callosotomy patients. Psychological Science 1996, 7:306-310.
8. Franz E.A., Zelaznik H.N., McCabe G. Spatial topological constraints in a bimanual task. Acta Psychologica 1991, 77:137-151.
9. Goodman D., Kelso J.S. Are movements prepared in parts? Not under compatible (naturalized) conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1980, 109:475-495.
10. Hanna G.B., Shimi S., Cuschieri A. Influence of direction of view, target-to-endoscope distance, and manipulation angle on endoscopic knot tying. British Journal of Surgery 1997, 84:1460-1464.
11. Hanna G.B., Shimi S., Cuschieri A. Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Annals of Surgery 1998, 227:481-484.
12. Hasbroucq T., Guiard Y., Kornblum S. The additivity of stimulus-response compatibility with the effects of sensory and motor factors in a tactile choice reaction time task. Acta Psychologica 1989, 72:139-144.
13. Hasbroucq T., Mouret I., Seal J., Akamatsu M. Finger pairings in two-choice reaction time tasks: Does the between-hands advantage reflect response preparation?. Journal of Motor Behavior 1995, 27:251-262.
14. Hazeltine E., Diedrichsen J., Kennerly S.W., Ivry R.B. Bimanual cross-talk during reaching movements is primarily related to response selection, not the specification of motor parameters. Psychological Research 2003, 67:56-70.
15. Herwig A., Massen C. Action planning with two-handed tools. Psychological Research 2009, 73:727-740.
16. Heuer H. Structural constraints on bimanual movements. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung 1993, 55:83-98.
17. Heuer H., Klein W. The influence of movement cues on intermanual interactions. Psychological Research 2006, 70:229-244.
18. Heuer H., Spijkers W., Kleinsorge T., van der Loo H., Steglich C. The time course of cross-talk during the simultaneous specification of bimanual movement amplitudes. Experimental Brain Research 1998, 118:381-392.
19. Heuer H., Spijkers W., Steglich C., Kleinsorge T. Parametric coupling and generalized decoupling revealed by concurrent and successive isometric contractions of distal muscles. Acta Psychologica 2002, 111:205-242.
20. Johnson-Frey S.H. The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8:71-78.
21. Johnson-Frey S.H., Newman-Norlund R., Grafton S.T. A distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills. Cerebral Cortex 2005, 15:681-695.
22. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 1990, 97:253-270.
23. Kunde W., Müsseler J., Heuer H. Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors 2007, 49:661-670.
24. Kunde W., Weigelt M. Goal congruency in bimanual object manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31:145-156.
25. Massen C., Prinz W. Programming tool-use actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2007, 33:692-704.
26. Müsseler J., Kunde W., Gausepohl D., Heuer H. Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects?. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 2008, 20:211-231.
27. Proctor R.W., Wang D.-Y.D., Pick D.F. Stimulus-response compatibility with wheel-rotation responses: Will an incompatible response coding be used when a compatible one is possible?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:841-847.
28. Savader S.J., Lillemoe K.D., Prescott C.A. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy-related bile duct injuries: A health and financial disaster. Annals of Surgery 1997, 225:268-273.
29. Spijkers W., Heuer H., Kleinsorge T., van der Loo H. Preparation of bimanual movements with same and different amplitudes: Specification interference as revealed by reaction time. Acta Psychologica 1997, 96:207-227.
30. Spijkers W., Heuer H., Steglich C., Kleinsorge T. Specification of movement amplitudes for the left and right hands: Evidence for transient parametric coupling from overlapping-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:1091-1105.
31. Swinnen S.P., Dounskaia N., Levin O., Duysens J. Constraints during bimanual coordination: The role of direction in relation to amplitude and force requirements. Behavioural Brain Research 2001, 123:201-218.
32. Tendick F., Jennings R.W., Tharp G., Stark L. Sensing and manipulation problems in endoscopic surgery: Experiment, analysis, and observation. Presence 1993, 2:66-81.
33. Wascher E., Schatz U., Kuder T., Verleger R. Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:731-751.
34. Weigelt M., Rieger M., Mechsner F., Prinz W. Target-related coupling in bimanual reaching movements. Psychological Research 2007, 71:438-447.
35. Zheng B., Janmohamed Z., MacKenzie C.L. Reaction times and the decision-making process in endoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy 2003, 17:1475-1480.
36. Zheng B., Verjee F., Lomax L., MacKenzie C.L. Video analysis of endoscopic cutting task performed by one versus two operators. Surgical Endoscopy 2005, 19:1388-1995.
37. Zheng B., Swanström L.L., MacKenzie C.L. A laboratory study on anticipatory movement in laparoscopic surgery: A behavioral indicator for team collaboration. Surgical Endoscopy 2007, 21:935-940.