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

Proctor, Robert W.; Dutta, Addie; Kelly, Paul L.; Weeks, Daniel J.

doi:10.3758/bf03206879

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, when a two-dimensional, symbolic stimulus set (e.g., two letters, O and Z, in large and small sizes) is assigned to the four keypress responses, RTs are faster for mappings in which the more salient stimulus feature (in this case, letter identity, as established independently by faster identity discriminations than size discriminations in two-choice tasks) distinguishes the two leftmost and two rightmost response locations than for mappings in which it distinguishes alternating locations (e.g., Dutta & Proctor, 1992;Miller, 1982;Proctor & Reeve, 1985;Proctor, Reeve, Weeks, Dornier, & Van Zandt, 1991). Similar results are obtained when four stimulus locations are assigned to a two-dimensional, vocal response set (Proctor, Dutta, Kelly, & Weeks, 1994). Thus there is considerable evidence that for linear arrays of four stimuli and/or four responses, the distinction between the left-right locations is more salient than that between the alternate locations.…”

Section: Mixed Mappings Structural Features and Precuingsupporting

confidence: 75%

Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks

Ehrenstein

Proctor

1998

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four-choice reaction tasks with a mixture of compatible and incompatible mappings were used to examine implications of the views that response selection occurs (a) in two stages (selection of the appropriate mapping rule, followed by application of the rule) and (b) by means of a second, direct route when the mappings for all possible stimuli are known to be compatible. All experiments showed, consistent with the two-stage view, that responses were faster and compatibility eects smaller when the mapping distinction corresponded to the left-right or inner-outer locations for the stimulus-response ensemble than when it did not. Moreover, precuing bene®ts tended to be larger when the cued responses had the same mapping than when they did not. There was an added bene®t when both precued responses were compatible, rather than incompatible, consistent with the view that selection between compatible responses can proceed along a direct route.

show abstract

Section: Mixed Mappings Structural Features and Precuingsupporting

confidence: 75%

Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks

Ehrenstein

Proctor

1998

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This principle is supported by numerous findings from four-choice tasks in which responses are made by pressing keys with the index and middle fingers of the left and right hands and stimuli are two-dimensional symbols or a row of spatial locations precued in pairs (see Reeve & Proctor, 1990, for a review). It also is supported by results for four-choice tasks in which the stimuli are auditory consonant-vowel combinations and/or the responses are similar vocal utterances (Proctor, Dutta, Kelly, & Weeks, 1994) and for two-choice tasks in which the stimuli and the responses vary along both vertical and horizontal dimensions . The crux of the principle is that performance is best when the structure inherent in the stimulus set is mapped consistently to the structure inherent in the response set.…”

mentioning

confidence: 59%

Influences of hand posture and hand position on compatibility effects for up-down stimuli mapped to left-right responses: Evidence for a hand referent hypothesis

Cho

Proctor

2002

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unimanual left-right responses to up-down stimuli show a stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect for which the preferred mapping varies as a function of response eccentricity. Responses made in the right hemispace and, to a lesser extent, at a midline position, are faster with the up-right/down-left mapping than with the up-left/down-right mapping, but responses made in the left hemispace are faster with the up-left/down-right mapping. Also, for responses at the midline position, the preferred mapping switches when the hand is placed in a supine posture instead of the more usual prone posture. The response eccentricity effect can be explained in terms of correspondence of asymmetrically coded stimulus and response features, but it is not obvious whether the hand posture effect can be explained in a similar manner. The present study tested the implications of a hypothesis that the body of the hand provides a frame of reference with respect to which the response switch is coded as left or right. As was predicted by this hand referent hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed that the influence of hand posture (prone and supine) on orthogonal SRC was additive with that of response location. In Experiment 2, the location of the switch relative to the hand was varied by having subjects use either a normal grip in which the switch was held between the thumb and the index finger or a grip in which it was held between the little and the ring fingers. The magnitudes of the mapping preferences varied as a function of the grip and hand posture in a manner consistent with the hand referent hypothesis.

show abstract

“…Although no differences in accuracy were detected for Experiment 2, we acknowledge that there is a difference in the difficulty of response mapping between location and identity conditions. Faster RTs to visual targets preceded by valid auditory or visual cues have been reported previously for spatial discrimination tasks (Diaconescu et al, 2008;Spence & Driver, 1997;Proctor, Dutta, Kelly, & Weeks, 1994). Furthermore, valid auditory and visual cues have been shown to facilitate performance to visual targets in particular, suggesting that the auditory system might be in the service of the visual-motor system during "where" processes, but not vice-versa (Kubovy & Van Valkenburg, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Modality-dependent “What” and “Where” Preparatory Processes in Auditory and Visual Systems

Diaconescu

Alain

McIntosh

2011

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the modality specificity and spatio-temporal dynamics of "what" and "where" preparatory processes in anticipation of auditory and visual targets using ERPs and a cue-target paradigm. Participants were presented with an auditory (Experiment 1) or a visual (Experiment 2) cue that signaled them to attend to the identity or location of an upcoming auditory or visual target. In both experiments, participants responded faster to the location compared to the identity conditions. Multivariate spatio-temporal partial least square (ST-PLS) analysis of the scalp-recorded data revealed supramodal "where" preparatory processes between 300-600 msec and 600-1200 msec at central and posterior parietal electrode sites in anticipation of both auditory and visual targets. Furthermore, preparation for pitch processing was captured at modality-specific temporal regions between 300 and 700 msec, and preparation for shape processing was detected at occipital electrode sites between 700 and 1150 msec. The spatio-temporal patterns noted above were replicated when a visual cue signaled the upcoming response (Experiment 2). Pitch or shape preparation exhibited modality-dependent spatio-temporal patterns, whereas preparation for target localization was associated with larger amplitude deflections at multimodal, centro-parietal sites preceding both auditory and visual targets. Using a novel paradigm, the study supports the notion of a division of labor in the auditory and visual pathways following both auditory and visual cues that signal identity or location response preparation to upcoming auditory or visual targets. Abstract ■ The present study examined the modality specificity and spatio-temporal dynamics of "what" and "where" preparatory processes in anticipation of auditory and visual targets using ERPs and a cue-target paradigm. Participants were presented with an auditory (Experiment 1) or a visual (Experiment 2) cue that signaled them to attend to the identity or location of an upcoming auditory or visual target. In both experiments, participants responded faster to the location compared to the identity conditions. Multivariate spatio-temporal partial least square (ST-

show abstract

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

Cited by 17 publications

References 21 publications

Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks

Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks

Influences of hand posture and hand position on compatibility effects for up-down stimuli mapped to left-right responses: Evidence for a hand referent hypothesis

Modality-dependent “What” and “Where” Preparatory Processes in Auditory and Visual Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About