Multidimensional vector model of stimulus-response compatibility

Psychological Review

Volumn 119, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 272-303

  Yamaguchi, Motonori ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Psychological scaling; Sequential sampling model; Simon effect; Thurstonian model; Vector model

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE; VALIDATION STUDY;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 84864296764     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0026620     Document Type: Article

References (126)

1. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036
2. Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365-377. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365
3. Ashby, F. G. (Ed.). (1992). Multidimensional models of perception and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Ashby, F. G. (2000). A stochastic version of general recognition theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 310-329. doi:10.1006/jmps.1998.1249
5. Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (1994). A response time theory of separability and integrity in speeded classification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 38, 423-466. doi:10.1006/jmps.1994.1032
6. Ashby, F. G., & Perrin, N. A. (1988). Toward a unified theory of similarity and recognition. Psychological Review, 95, 124-150. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.1.124
7. Ashby, F. G., & Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154-179. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.154
8. Audley, R. J., & Pike, A. R. (1965). Some alternative stochastic models of choice. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 18, 207-225. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1965.tb00342.x
9. Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 160-166. doi:10.1177/0963721411408885
10. Böckenholt, I., & Gaul, W. (1986). Analysis of choice behavior via probabilistic ideal point and vector models. Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis, 2, 209-226.
11. Bradley, R. A., & Terry, M. E. (1952). Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparison. Biometrika, 39, 324-345. doi:10.2307/2334029
12. Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice reaction time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153-178. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002
13. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523-547. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.4.523
14. Cagigas, X. E., Filoteo, J., Stricker, J. L., Rilling, L. M., & Friedrich, F. J. (2007). Flanker compatibility effects in patients with Parkinson's disease: Impact of target onset delay and trial-by-trial stimulus variation. Brain and Cognition, 63, 247-259. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2006.09.002
15. Carroll, J. D. (1980). Models and methods for multidimensional analysis of preferential choice (or other dominance) data. In E. D. Lantermann & H. Feger (Eds.), Similarity and choice (pp. 234-289). Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber.
16. Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of "EckartYoung" decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283-319. doi:10.1007/BF02310791
17. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45-73. doi:10.3758/BF03196468
18. Cohen, A. L., Sanborn, A. N., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2008). Model evaluation using grouped or individual data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 692-712. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.4.692
19. Coombs, C. H. (1950). Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement. Psychological Review, 57, 145-158. doi:10.1037/h0060984
20. De Houwer, J. (2004). Spatial Simon effects with nonspatial responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 49-53. doi:10.3758/BF03206459
21. De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731
22. DeSarbo, W. S., & Cho, J. (1989). A stochastic multidimensional scaling vector threshold model for the spatial representation of "pick any/n" data. Psychometrika, 54, 105-129. doi:10.1007/BF02294452
23. De Soete, G., & Carroll, J. D. (1983). A maximum likelihood method for fitting the wandering vector model. Psychometrika, 48, 553-566. doi: 10.1007/BF02293879
24. De Soete, G., & Carroll, J. D. (1992). Probabilistic multidimensional models of pairwise choice data. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 61-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. De Soete, G., Carroll, J. D., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1986). The wandering ideal point model: A probabilistic multidimensional unfolding model for paired comparisons data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 28-41. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(86)90040-4
26. Dzhafarov, E. N. (1993). Grice-representability of response time distribution families. Psychometrika, 58, 281-314. doi:10.1007/BF02294577
27. Dzhafarov, E. N., & Colonius, H. (2001). Multidimensional Fechnerian scaling: Basics. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 670-719. doi:10.1006/jmps.2000.1341
28. Dzhafarov, E. N., & Colonius, H. (2011). The Fechnerian idea. American Journal of Psychology, 124, 127-140. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc .124.2.0127
29. Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, E. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737-1747. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1737
30. Ennis, D. M. (1988). Confusable and discriminable stimuli: Comment on Nosofsky (1986) and Shepard (1986). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 408-411. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.117.4.408
31. Ennis, D. M. (1993). A single multidimensional model for discrimination, identification, and preferential choice. Acta Psychologica, 84, 17-27. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(93)90069-4
32. Ennis, D. M., & Johnson, N. L. (1994). A general model for preferential and triadic choice in terms of central F distribution functions. Psychometrika, 59, 91-96. doi:10.1007/BF02294268
33. Ennis, D. M., Palen, J. J., & Mullen, K. (1988). A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 449-465. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(88)90023-5
34. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research, 71, 22-29. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0033-3
35. Fechner, G. T. (1966). Elements of psychophysics (Vol. 1; H. E. Adler, Trans.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (Original work published in 1860)
36. Fific, M., Little, D. R., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2010). Logical-rule models of classification response times: A synthesis of mental-architecture, random-walk, and decision-bound approaches. Psychological Review, 117, 309-348. doi:10.1037/a0018526
37. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483-492. doi:10.1037/h0054967
38. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210. doi:10.1037/h0062827
39. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.
40. Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 331-342.
41. Haupt, R. L., & Haupt, S. E. (2004). Practical genetic algorithms (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
42. Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340-347. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.340
43. Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208-222. doi:10.1007/BF00419608
44. Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268. doi:10.1007/BF00419656
45. Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 247-273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000103
47. Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulusresponse compatibility. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
48. Inhoff, A. W., Rosenbaum, D. A., Gordon, A. M., & Campbell, J. A. (1984). Stimulus-response compatibility and motor programming of manual response sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 724-733. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.724
49. Klein, R. M., Dove, M. E., Ivanoff, J., & Eskes, G. A. (2006). Parametric exploration of the Simon effect across visual space. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 60, 112-126. doi:10.1037/cjep2006012
50. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253
51. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387-394. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387
53. Kunde, W., Müsseler, J., & Heuer, H. (2007). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors, 49, 661-670. doi:10.1518/001872007X215737
54. Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115-130. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(92)90028-C
55. Leonhard, T., Ruiz Fernández, S., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2011). Dual-task processing when Task 1 is hard and Task 2 is easy: Reversed central processing order? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 115-136. doi:10.1037/a0019238
56. Lleras, A., Moore, C. M., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2004). Looking for the source of the Simon effect: Evidence of multiple codes. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 531-542. doi:10.2307/4148990
57. Logan, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1015-1036. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.5.1015
58. Logan, G. D. (1996). The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention. Psychological Review, 103, 603-649. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.603
59. Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376-400. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.2.376
60. Lu, C.-H. (1997). Correspondence effects for irrelevant information in choice-reaction tasks: Characterizing the S-R relations and the processing dynamics. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 85-117). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
61. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207. doi:10.3758/BF03210959
62. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.
63. Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E. (1963). Handbook of mathematical psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
64. Maddox, W. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1996). Perceptual separability, decisional separability, and the identification-speeded classification relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 795-817. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.795
65. McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471-484. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.2.471
66. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.207
67. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.3
68. Miles, J. D., Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Dilution of compatibility effects in Simon-type tasks depends on categorical similarity between distractors and diluters. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1598-1606. doi:10.3758/APP.71.7.1598
69. Mullen, K., & Ennis, D. M. (1991). A simple multivariate probabilistic model for referential and triadic choices. Psychometrika, 56, 69-75. doi:10.1007/BF02294586
70. Müller, H. J., & Krummenacher, J. (2006). Locus of dimension weighting: Preattentive or postselective? Visual Cognition, 14, 490-513. doi: 10.1080/13506280500194154
71. Murdock, B. B. (1985). An analysis of the strength-latency relationship. Memory & Cognition, 13, 511-521. doi:10.3758/BF03198322
72. Myung, J. I. (2003). Tutorial on maximum likelihood estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 90-100. doi:10.1016/S0022-2496(02)00028-7
73. Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. (1965). A simplex method for function minimization. Computer Journal, 7, 308-313.
74. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review, 65, 151-166. doi: 10.1037/h0048495
76. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1985). Responding with hand and foot: The right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 211-216. doi:10.3758/BF03207147
77. Nosofsky, R. M. (1985). Luce's choice model and Thurstone's categorical judgment model compared: Kornbrot's data revisited. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 89-91. doi:10.3758/BF03207144
78. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identificationcategorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39-57. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.39
79. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266-300. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.266
80. Nosofsky, R. M., & Stanton, R. D. (2005). Speeded classification in a probabilistic category structure: Contrasting exemplar-retrieval, decision-boundary, and prototype models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 608-629. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.3.608
81. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
82. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416-442. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416
83. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 623-639. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.11.5.623
84. Proctor, R. W., & Van Zandt, T. (2008). Human factors in simple and complex systems (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRE Press.
85. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
86. Proctor, R. W., Yamaguchi, M., Dutt, V., & Gonzalez, C. (2011). Dissociation of S-R compatibility and Simon effects with mixed tasks and mappings. Manuscript submitted for publication.
87. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
88. Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333-367. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333
89. Ratcliff, R., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 438-481. doi:10.3758/BF03196302
90. Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0
91. Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing, Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
92. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1
93. Shepard, R. N. (1957). Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22, 325-345. doi:10.1007/BF02288967
94. Shepard, R. N. (1958). Stimulus and response generalization: Tests of a model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 509-523. doi:10.1037/h0042354
95. Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 54-87. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90017-3
96. Shepard, R. N. (1986). Discrimination and generalization in identification and classification: Comment on Nosofsky. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 58-61. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.58
97. Shepard, R. N. (1987, September 11). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-1323. doi: 10.1126/science.3629243
98. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31-86). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
99. Simon, J. R., & Wolf, J. D. (1963). Choice reaction times as a function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age. Ergonomics, 6, 99-105. doi:10.1080/00140136308930679
100. Slater, P. (1960). The analysis of personal preference. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 13, 119-135. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317 .1960.tb00050.x
101. Small, A. M. (1990). Foreword. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. v-vi). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
102. Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, F. (2000). The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 648-670. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.2.648
103. Tanner, W. P. (1956). Theory of recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 28, 882-888. doi:10.1121/1.1908504
104. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286. doi:10.1037/h0070288
105. Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York, NY: Wiley.
106. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
107. Treisman, A., & Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 459-478. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.16.3.459
108. Tucker, L. R. (1960). Intra-individual and inter-individual multidimensionality. In H. Gulliksen & S. Messick (Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications (pp. 155-167). New York, NY: Wiley.
109. Tucker, L. R., & Messick, S. J. (1963). Individual difference model for multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 28, 333-367. doi:10.1007/BF02289557
110. Van Zandt, T. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 424-465. doi:10.3758/BF03214357
111. Van Zandt, T., Colonius, H., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). A comparison of two response time models applied to perceptual matching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 208-256. doi:10.3758/BF03212980
112. Vickers, D., & Lee, M. D. (1998). Dynamic models of simple judgments: I. Properties of a self-regulating accumulator module. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 2, 169-194. doi:10.1023/A: 1022371901259
113. Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in twodimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 815-828. doi:10.3758/BF03194748
114. Wagenmakers, E.-J., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 3-22. doi:10.3758/BF03194023
115. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360. doi:10.1037/h0030892
116. Wickens, C. D., Lee, J., Liu, Y. D., & Gordon-Becker, S. (2004). Introduction to human factors engineering (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
117. Wühr, P., Biebl, R., & Ansorge, U. (2008). The impact of stimulus and response variability on S-R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 533-545. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.533
118. Wykowska, A., Schubö, A., & Hommel, B. (2009). How you move is what you see: Action planning biases selection in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1755-1769. doi:10.1037/a0016798
119. Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 207-222. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.12.4.207
120. Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). Compatibility of motion information in two aircraft attitude displays for a tracking task. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 81-92.
121. Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2011a). On spatial representations and dimensional saliency in Simon tasks. Manuscript submitted for publication.
122. Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2011b). The Simon task with multicomponent responses: Two loci of response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 75, 214-226. doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0299-y
123. Zhang, H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 386-432. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998 .0703
124. Zinnes, J. L., & Griggs, R. A. (1974). Probabilistic, multidimensional unfolding analysis. Psychometrika, 39, 327-350. doi:10.1007/BF02291707
125. Zinnes, J. L., & Mackay, J. B. (1983). Probabilistic multidimensional scaling: Complete and incomplete data. Psychometrika, 48, 27-48. doi:10.1007/BF02314675
126. Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193-205. doi:10.1007/BF00419634