Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses.

We investigated the right-left prevalence effect in spatial compatibility tasks by assessing subjects' performance on a two-dimensional task in which both the horizontal and vertical spatial dimensions were task relevant. Two experiments were performed, in which stimulus-response mappings were one-dimensional (Experiment 1) and two-dimensional (Experiment 2). The subjects responded by using either horizontal or vertical effectors to stimuli appearing in four possible locations. With the one-dimensional mapping, the spatial compatibility effect was present only in the dimension relevant to the mapping. With the two-dimensional mapping, the horizontal compatibility effect was always present, whereas the vertical compatibility effect was present only when vertical effectors were used. This pattern of results indicates that horizontal coding takes place with either horizontal or vertical effectors, whereas vertical coding takes place only when vertical effectors are used.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Right—left prevalence effect with horizontal and vertical effectors

Rubichi

Nicoletti

Pelosi

et al. 2004

“…Reaction times (RTs) are faster if the assignment is such that letter identity distinguishes the two left and two right responses (e.g., a left-to-right assignment of OozZ) than if it does not (e.g., a left-to-right assignment ofOzoZ; Proctor & Reeve, 1985;Proctor, Reeve, Weeks, Dornier, & Van Zandt, 1991). For this experiment, letter identity is the most salient feature of the stimulus set, as indicated by faster identity discriminations than size discriminations (Proctor & Reeve, 1985). Hence, responding is fastest for assignments in which the salient letter-identity feature of the stimulus set corresponds witH the salient leftlright spatial feature of the response set.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Experiment 1, the speech stimulus set used by Gordon and Meyer (1984) was assigned to four keypress responses in a manner similar to the assignments used by Proctor and Reeve (1985) for the two-dimensional visual stimuli. In Experiment 2, the stimulus and response modalities were reversed, with a horizontal row of four spatial-location stimuli assigned to the speech responses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-modal compatibility effects with visual-spatial and auditory-verbal stimulus and response sets

Proctor

Dutta

Kelly

et al. 1994

Self Cite

Within the visual-spatial and auditory-verbal modalities, reaction times to a stimulus have been shown to be faster if salient features of the stimulus and response sets correspond than if they do not. Accounts that attribute such stimulus-response compatibility effects to general translation processes predict that similar effects should occur for cross-modal stimulus and response sets. To test this prediction, three experiments were conducted examining four-choice reactions with (l) visual spatial-location stimuli assigned to speech responses, (2) speech stimuli assigned to keypress responses, and (3) symbolic visual stimuli assigned to speech responses. In all the experiments, responses were faster when correpondence between salient features of the stimulus and response sets was maintained, demonstrating that similar principles of translation operate both within and across modalities.Performance of a perceptual-motor task requires that perceptual information be translated into action. The speed and accuracy with which many tasks can be performed is primarily a function of the difficulty of the required translation (Welford, 1976). Several factors, including the number of possible stimuli, the relation between the stimulus set and the action class, and the amount of practice, influence the difficulty of translation.

“…In a typical choice-reaction task, only a single stimulus is presented on each trial, with that stimulus being the target to which the subject must respond (e.g., Proctor & Reeve, 1985). However, in the target-distractor task, the target stimulus is flanked by noise stimuli that may signal an incorrect response.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A response-selection basis for the mixed-category, repeated-stimulus inferiority effect

Proctor

Fober

1988

Self Cite

When subjects identify a target stimulus with an assigned keypress response, flanking noise stimuli produce interference if they signal an alternative response and slight facilitation if they are identical to the target. However, when the possible stimuli come from two distinct categories Getters and digits), interference also occurs if the noise letters are identical to the target. Four experiments were conducted to determine whether this mixed-category, repeated-stimulus inferiority effect is due to stimulus-identification or response-selection processes. The inferiority effect was (1) absent when letters were assigned to one response and digits to another; (2) absent when the target stimulus was named, rather than identified by a keypress response; and (3) eliminated when subjects practiced with mixed assignments of letters and digits. These findings converge on a response-selection basis for the inferiority effect.