Influences of different combinations of conceptual, perceptual, and structural similarity on stimulus-response compatibility

Proctor, Robert W.; Wang, Hui‐Fang; Vu, Kim‐Phuong L.

doi:10.1080/02724980143000163

Cited by 30 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the automatic primed response has to be inhibited an increment of RT will be observed, giving rise to the well-known Simon effect. Moreover, this effect is stronger when the stimulus and the response share modality (i.e., physical spatial stimulus-spatial motor response or verbal stimulus-verbal response; Proctor, Wang, & Kim-Phoung, 2002).…”

Section: Spatial S-r Compatibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial interference and response control in sequence learning: the role of explicit knowledge

Tubau

López‐Moliner

2004

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In several sequence learning studies it has been suggested that response control shifts from the stimuli to some internal representation (i.e., motor program) through the learning process. The main questions addressed in this paper are whether this control shift is related to explicit knowledge and whether the formation of these internal representations depends on the stimulus attributes. In one experiment we compared the learning of a response sequence triggered by either spatial location or location symbol (left-right) by using a serial response task (SRT). Symbols were presented at either a centered or random location. The results showed that in the symbolic conditions the shift of response control correlated with the emergence of explicit knowledge. Only participants with complete explicit knowledge seemed to learn the sequence structure beyond probabilistic information (response time "RT" did not depend on the frequency of the response). Moreover, these participants were able to overcome, when needed, spatial interference (RT was the same for both spatially corresponding and non-corresponding trials). However, when spatial location was relevant, RT was always faster, especially for more frequent responses. These results suggest that the relevant stimulus dimension (location or symbol) seems to engage different sequence learning mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Spatial S-r Compatibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial interference and response control in sequence learning: the role of explicit knowledge

Tubau

López‐Moliner

2004

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The external coordinate frame corresponds to the consolidated goal representation found in well-learned tasks. A second, more concrete representation determines the effector-specific motor response corresponding to the internal coordinate frame (Cohen, Pascual-maximized through extensive training (Stoet & Snyder, 2003, task familiarity (Rubinstein et al, 2001), high S-R compatibility (e.g., Dassonville, Lewis, Foster, & Ashe, 1999;Fitts & Deininger, 1954;Fitts & Seeger, 1953;Fitts & Simon, 1952;Kornblum & Lee, 1995;Proctor, Wang, & Vu, 2002;Simon & Rudell, 1967;Simon & Small, 1969;reviewed in Lien & Proctor, 2002), and S-R mapping cue (Diedrichsen, Hazeltine, Kennerley, & Ivry, 2001;Hazeltine, Bunge, Scanlon, & Gabrieli, 2003;Lien & Proctor, 2002).…”

Section: Coordinate System and Direction Of Task Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%

On the minimization of task switch costs following long-term training

Berryhill

Hughes

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The typical ways RS has been studied in the past has been through compatibility experiments (Fitts & Deininger, 1954;Fitts & Seeger, 1953;Kornblum, Hasbroucq, & Osman, 1990;Proctor, Wang, & Vu, 2002), the Simon task (de Jon, Liang, & Lauber, 1994;Eimer, Hommel, & Prinz, 1995;Hommel, 1993;Proctor, Lu, Wang, Dutta, 1995;Simon, 1969;Simon & Rudell, 1967), and dual-task experiments (Pashler 1994a(Pashler , 1994bRuthruff, Johnston, Van Selst, Whitsell, & Remington, 2003;Ruthfuff, Pashler, Klassen, 2001). These different methodologies have been successful in demonstrating various aspects of RS processing.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reaching into response selection: Stimulus and response similarity influence central operations.

Wifall¹,

Buss²,

Farmer³

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

iv ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the impact of stimulus and response similarity on response selection. Traditional models of response selection invoke a central processor that operates like a look-up table by matching the perceptually classified stimulus (e.g., green square) to the specified response (e.g., right button press). The look-up property of response selection affords the system the ability to map any stimulus onto any response, even if that stimulus-response has never been paired before. Under such an approach, the degree of perceptual similarity or dissimilarity that exists among stimuli in the environment should have little effect on central operations, the similarity or dissimilarity of the motor response executed in response to a stimulus should not influence response selection, and no interaction between stimulus and response features is permitted, given that stimulus features affect the encoding process, and response features affect the output process, but not response selection itself.Eight studies examine the influence of stimulus and response similarity during response selection. The first two experiments establish the interaction across different task demands between stimulus and response similarity. The interaction was not the result of perceptual difficulty (Experiment 3) and was extended to a new set of stimuli (Experiment 4). A consequence of the design in Experiments 1 -4 was that response condition was confounded with response configuration. In one of the response conditions the target location had three competitors on one side of it compared to the other condition where the target had one competitor on one side and two others on the other side.Experiments 5 and 6 examined the separate roles that response configuration and response metrics had on the interaction between stimulus and response similarity. The mechanism that produced the interaction was the result of competition between partially activated stimulus-response alternatives. Experiments 7 and 8 further explored the role of competition during response selection by turning to traditional response selection methodologies that introduce competition through either the presentation of irrelevant v stimulus information or through presenting the stimulus along an irrelevant spatial dimension.These data have broad implications for models of RS. To account for the ability to pair any stimulus modality with any response modality dominant accounts of RS assume that central operations are performed by a generic set of processes that operate over representations that are stripped of metric information (amodal representations).Response selection works as a look-up table that receives a categorized stimulus as an input and returns an abstract response code as output. This type of model cannot produce an interaction between stimulus and response similarity and thus, the present data provide a serious challenge to these types of models. Finally, the data provide evidence that the metric relationship between stimuli and response matter an...

show abstract

Influences of different combinations of conceptual, perceptual, and structural similarity on stimulus-response compatibility

Cited by 30 publications

References 22 publications

Spatial interference and response control in sequence learning: the role of explicit knowledge

Spatial interference and response control in sequence learning: the role of explicit knowledge

On the minimization of task switch costs following long-term training

Reaching into response selection: Stimulus and response similarity influence central operations.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About