Dissociation of S-R compatibility and simon effects with mixed tasks and mappings

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 593-609

  Proctor, Robert W ^a   Yamaguchi, Motonori ^a,c   Dutt, Varun ^b,d   Gonzalez, Cleotilde ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MANDI   (India)

Author keywords

Dual route account; Mixed tasks; Simon effect; Stimulus response compatibility; Task switching

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; CONFLICT; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; STUDENT;

ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION; STUDENTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84879165272     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0029923     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 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
2. De Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 88, 187-207. doi:10.1016/0001- 6918(94)E0067-P
3. De Jong, R., Liang, C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulusresponse correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20 .4.731
4. Dutta, A., & Proctor, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 801-809. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.18.4.801
5. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 374-380. doi:10.1016/ j.tics.2008.07.001
6. 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
7. He, X., Fan, S., Zhou, K., & Chen, L. (2004). Cue validity and object-based attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1085-1097. doi: 10.1162/0898929041502689
8. Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427-439. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(75)90041-4
9. Heister, G., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1994). Spatial S-R compatibility: Positional instructions vs. compatibility instruction. Acta Psychologica, 85, 15-24. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(94)90017-5
10. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189-202. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011
11. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research/ Psychologische Forschung, 68, 1-17. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y
12. Iani, C., Rubichi, S., Gherri, E., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). Co-occurrence of sequential and practice effects in the Simon task: Evidence for two independent mechanisms affecting response selection. Memory & Cognition, 37, 358-367. doi:10.3758/MC.37.3.358
13. 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
14. Marble, J. G., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Mixing location-relevant and location-irrelevant trials in choice-reaction tasks: Influences of location mapping on the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1515-1533. doi:10.1037/ 0096-1523.26.5.1515
15. Miles, J. D., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Improving performance through implementation intentions: Are preexisting response biases replaced. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1105-1110. doi:10.3758/PBR.15 .6.1105
16. Moresi, S., Adam, J. J., Rijcken, J., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2008). Cue validity effects in response preparation: A pupillometric study. Brain Research, 1196, 94-102. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.12.026
17. Proctor, R. W., & Fisicaro, S. A. (1977). Time, capacity, and selection between perceptual attributes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 337-348. doi:10.1037/0096- 1523.3.2.337
18. Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C.-H. (1999). Processing irrelevant information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory & Cognition, 27, 63-77. doi:10.3758/BF03201214
19. Proctor, R. W., Miles, J. D., & Baroni, G. (2011). Reaction-time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 242-266. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0053-5
20. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002a). Eliminating, magnifying, and reversing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant and irrelevant trials. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance, (Vol. XIX, pp. 443-473). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002b). Mixing location-irrelevant and location-relevant trials: Influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects. Memory & Cognition, 30, 281-293. doi:10.3758/ BF03195289
22. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
23. Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Marble, J. G. (2003). Spatial compatibility effects are eliminated when intermixed location-irrelevant trials produce the same spatial codes. Visual Cognition, 10, 15-50. doi:10.1080/ 713756673
24. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 494-519). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25. Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Iani, C., & Umiltà, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1353- 1364. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.5.1353
26. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288. doi:10.1037/h0022207
27. 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.
28. Soetens, E., Maetens, K., & Zeischka, P. (2010). Practice-induced and sequential modulations of the Simon effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 895-911. doi:10.3758/APP.72.4.895
29. Spironelli, C., Tagliabue, M., & Umiltà, C. (2009). Response selection and attention orienting: A computational model of Simon effect asymmetries. Experimental Psychology, 56, 274-282. doi:10.1027/1618-3169 .56.4.274
30. Sẗurmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345-1363. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.28.6.1345
31. Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 539-556.
32. Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2008). Age differences in response selection for pure and mixed stimulus-response mappings and tasks. Acta Psychologica, 129, 49-60. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.006
33. Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Influence of bias on visuospatial and verbal compatibility effects in mixed mapping environments. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2594-2605. doi:10.3758/s13414-011- 0205-8
34. Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Peters, A. (2006). Sequential modulations of interference evoked by processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 644-667. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.644 Ẅ
35. ẄUhr, P. (2011). Working-memory load decreases mappings effects in spatial-compatibility tasks. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 75, 393-405. doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0317-0 Ẅ
36. ẄUhr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2007). A Simon effect in memory retrieval: Evidence for the response-discrimination account. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 984-988. doi:10.3758/BF03194132 Ẅ
37. ẄUhr, P., & Biebl, R. (2011). The role of working memory in spatial S-R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 442-454. doi:10.1037/a0020563
38. 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
39. Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119, 272- 303. doi:10.1037/a0026620
40. Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 58, 193- 205. doi:10.1007/BF00419634