Determinants of Right-Left and Top-Bottom Prevalence for Two-Dimensional Spatial Compatibility

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 813-828

  Vu, Kim Phuong L ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; PREVALENCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; HUMANS; PREVALENCE; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 85047683093     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.813     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Aschersleben, G., Bachmann, T., & Muesseler, J. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
2. Beyak, B., Weeks, D., & Chua, R. (2001). Salience of response features in the spatial precuing task. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Effect of an initiating action on the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli and horizontally arrayed responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 472-484.
4. Donders, F. C. (1969). On the speed of mental processes. In W. G. Koster (Ed.), Acta psychologica, 30, attention and performance II (pp. 412-431). Amsterdam: North-Holland. (Original work published 1868).
5. 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.
6. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
7. Heister, G., Ehrenstein, W. H., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1986). Spatial S-R compatibility effects with unimanual two-finger choice reactions for prone and supine hand positions. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 271-278.
8. Heister, G., Schroeder-Heister, P., & Ehrenstein, W. H. (1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 117-143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
9. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon Effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270-279.
10. Hommel, B. (1996). No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 102-110.
11. Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
12. Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 644-673.
13. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 333-343.
14. 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.
15. Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., Tressoldi, E. P., & Marzi, C. A. (1988). Why are right-left spatial codes easier to form than above-below ones? Perception & Psychophysics. 43, 287-292.
16. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2001). The up-right/down-left advantage occurs for both participant- and computer-paced conditions: An empirical observation on Adam, Boon, Paas, & Umiltà (1998). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 466-471.
17. Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1993). Do the same stimulus-response relations influence choice reactions initially and after practice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 922-930.
18. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 623-639.
19. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1986). Salient-feature coding operations in spatial precuing tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 277-285.
20. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.). (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
21. Reeve, G. T., & Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 541-553.
22. Reeve, G. T., Proctor, R. W., Weeks, D. J., & Dornier, L. (1992). Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 453-460.
23. Schneider, W. (1995). Micro Experimental Laboratory (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
24. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
25. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
26. Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2000). Horizontal versus vertical compatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses. Psychological Research, 64, 25-40.
27. Woodworth, R. S. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movement [Monograph]. Psychological Review, 3, 1-119.