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

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 472-484

  Cho, Yang Seok ^a   Proctor, Robert W ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MENTAL FUNCTION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HUMANS; MENTAL PROCESSES; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 85047686246     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.472     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adam, J. J., Boon, B., Paas, F. G. W. C., & Umiltà, C. (1998). The up-right/down-left advantage for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: A dual-strategy hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1582-1597.
2. Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1990). Display-control compatibility in the cockpit: Guidelines for display layout analysis (ARL-90-12/NASA-A3I-90-1). Savoy: Aviation Research Laboratory, University of Illinois.
3. Balota, D. A., Boland, J. E., & Shields, L. W. (1989). Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 14-36.
4. Bauer, D. W., & Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 367-380.
5. Chase, W. G., & Clark, H. H. (1971). Semantics in the perception of verticality. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 311-326.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Farrell, W. S., Jr. (1979). Coding left and right. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 42-51.
9. 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.
10. Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Die Kodierungsabhaengigkeit orthogonaler Reiz-Reaktions-Kompatibilitaet [Coding specificity of orthogonal S-R compatibility]. Zeitshrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 46, 249-264.
11. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Lippa, Y. (1996). A referential-coding explanation for compatibility effects of physically orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 950-971.
13. Lippa, Y., & Adam, J. J. (in press). An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: The end-state comfort hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics.
14. Marshall, P. H., Anderson, T., & Kozar, B. (1992). Systematic bias in successive movement repetitions. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 355-358.
15. Michaels, C. F. (1989). S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 262-272.
16. Michaels, C. F., & Schilder, S. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibilities between vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: The effects of hand position and posture. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 342-348.
17. Olson, G. M., & Laxar, K. (1973). Asymmetries in processing the terms "right" and "left." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 284-290.
18. 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, and Umiltà (1998). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 466-471.
19. Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (1999). Deconstructing Marilyn: Robust effects of face contexts on stimulus-response compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 27, 986-995.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
23. Proctor, R. W., Reeve, T. G., & Van Zandt, T. (1992). Salient-features coding in response selection. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 727-741). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
24. Proctor, R. W., Reeve, T. G., Weeks, D. J., Dornier, L., & Van Zandt, T. (1991). Acquisition, retention, and transfer of response selection skill in choice-reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 497-506.
25. Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). The salient-features coding principle for spatial- and symbolic-compatibility effects. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 163-180). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
26. Reeve, T. G., Proctor, R. W., Weeks, D. J., & Dornier, L. (1992). Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 453-460.
27. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444-474.
28. Roswarski, T. E., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research, 59, 196-211.
29. Schneider, W. (1995). Micro Experimental Laboratory (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
30. Sternberg, S. (1998). Discovering mental processing stages: The method of additive factors. In D. Scarborough & S. Sternberg (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science: Methods, models, and conceptual issues (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 703-863). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Umiltà, C. (1991). Problems of the salient-feature coding hypothesis: Comment on Weeks and Proctor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 83-86.
32. Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-feature coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355-366.
33. Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1991). Salient-feature coding and orthogonal compatibility effects: A reply to Umiltà. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 87-89.
34. Weeks, D. J., Proctor, R. W., & Beyak, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: Evidence for spatial coding. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 367-383.