Influences of multiple spatial stimulus and response codes on orthogonal stimulus—response compatibility

Cho, Yang Seok; Proctor, Robert W.

doi:10.3758/bf03194991

Cited by 24 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of the hand opening/closing paradigm, introduced by Stürmer et al, (2000), it is now standard to present the stimulus movements in a plane orthogonal to that of the response movements, thereby controlling for left-right and up-down spatial compatibility Wang, Newport, & Hamilton, in press). A study varying the anatomical identity of the stimulus hand, and response hemispace, has also confirmed that simple orthogonal spatial compatibility (e.g., a tendency to respond to up stimuli with right responses; Weeks & Proctor, 1990) and complex orthogonal spatial compatibility (e.g., a tendency to respond to up stimuli with right responses in right hemispace, and to down stimuli with right responses in left hemispace; Cho & Proctor, 2004) do not contribute to automatic imitation effects in the hand open/close procedure (Press et al, 2008).…”

Section: Finger Movements a Recent Study Bymentioning

confidence: 86%

Automatic imitation.

Heyes¹

2011

Psychological Bulletin

554

712

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Automatic imitation" is a type of stimulus-response compatibility effect in which the topographical features of task-irrelevant action stimuli facilitate similar, and interfere with dissimilar, responses. This article reviews behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging research on automatic imitation, asking in what sense it is "automatic" and whether it is "imitation." This body of research reveals that automatic imitation is a covert form of imitation, distinct from spatial compatibility. It also indicates that, although automatic imitation is subject to input modulation by attentional processes, and output modulation by inhibitory processes, it is mediated by learned, long-term sensorimotor associations that cannot be altered directly by intentional processes. Automatic imitation provides an important tool for the investigation of the mirror neuron system, motor mimicry, and complex forms of imitation. It is a new behavioral phenomenon, comparable with the Stroop and Simon effects, providing strong evidence that even healthy adult humans are prone, in an unwilled and unreasoned way, to copy the actions of others.

show abstract

Section: Finger Movements a Recent Study Bymentioning

confidence: 86%

Automatic imitation.

Heyes¹

2011

Psychological Bulletin

554

712

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Attempts have been made to address this problem: Heyes et al (2005) placed participants' response hands orthogonal to the direction of the observed stimuli; however, orthogonal spatial compatibility (Cho & Proctor, 2004), where participants are faster to respond to a rightward stimulus with an upward response, and a leftward stimulus with a downward response, may still operate in this spatial configuration. Bertenthal et al (2006, Experiment 1), in common with many other studies, found a large compatibility effect when spatial and imitative compatibility were confounded, which could be due to either the spatial or the imitative properties of the stimuli, or both.…”

Section: Spatial Compatibility Confounds Measures Of Imitative Compatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spatially Incompatible responses, but orthogonal spatial compatibility effects may still be seen in this configuration (Cho & Proctor, 2004); therefore, these trials are classified as spatially compatible and incompatible.…”

Section: Spatially Compatiblementioning

confidence: 99%

Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility.

Catmur

Heyes

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

137

227

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imitative compatibility, or automatic imitation, has been used as a measure of imitative performance and as a behavioral index of the functioning of the human mirror system (e.g., Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschlager, & Prinz, 2000; Heyes, Bird, Johnson, & Haggard, 2005; Kilner, Paulignan, & Blakemore, 2003). However, the use of imitative compatibility as a measure of imitation has been criticized on the grounds that imitative compatibility has been confounded with simple spatial compatibility (Aicken, Wilson, Williams, & Mon-Williams, 2007; Bertenthal, Longo, & Kosobud, 2006; Jansson, Wilson, Williams, & Mon-Williams, 2007). Two experiments are reported in which, in contrast with previous studies, imitative compatibility was measured on both spatially compatible and spatially incompatible trials, and imitative compatibility was shown to be present regardless of spatial compatibility. Additional features of the experiments allowed measurement of the time courses of the imitative and spatial compatibility effects both within and across trials. It was found that imitative compatibility follows a different time course from spatial compatibility, providing further evidence for their independence and supporting the use of imitative compatibility as a measure of imitation

show abstract

“…In the current motor attention task, we used a rather abstract S-R link requiring a complex process of translation (color to hand of response). The kind of direct S-R association used by Siebner et al (position of hand response) was very spatial in nature and is so automatic that it often interferes with responses when the spatial position of the response is irrelevant to the task that is being performed (see Cho & Proctor, 2004 for the ''Simon effect''). The left and right DLPFC may be differentially involved in the selection of motor responses in tasks with different S-R demands, with the right DLPFC playing a greater role when the movement is specified in a spatially congruent manner, reflecting, perhaps, the role of this area in response inhibition (Aron et al, 2004).…”

Section: Role Of the Prefrontal Cortex In Motor And Spatial Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of rTMS Conditioning over the Fronto-parietal Network on Motor versus Visual Attention

Rounis

Yarrow

Rothwell

2007

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using two variants of a cued reaction time (RT) task, we set out to investigate whether high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS; 5 Hz) delivered ''off-line'' in a virtual lesion paradigm over the right or left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) or the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) would affect performance in a motor versus a visual attention task. Although rTMS over the DLPFC on either side did not affect RT performance on a spatial orienting task, it did lead to an increase in the RTs of invalidly cued trials in a motor attention task when delivered to the left DLPFC. The opposite effect was found when rTMS was delivered to the PPC: In this case, conditioning the right PPC led to increased RTs in invalidly cued trials located in the left hemispace, in the spatial orienting task. rTMS over the PPC on either side did not affect performance in the motor attention task. This double dissociation was evident in the first 10 min after rTMS conditioning. These results enhance our understanding of the networks associated with attention. They provide evidence of a role for the left DLPFC in the mechanisms of motor preparation, and confirm Mesulam's original proposal for a right PPC dominance in spatial attention [Mesulam, M. M. A cortical network for directed attention and unilateral neglect.

show abstract

Influences of multiple spatial stimulus and response codes on orthogonal stimulus—response compatibility

Cited by 24 publications

References 21 publications

Automatic imitation.

Automatic imitation.

Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility.

Effects of rTMS Conditioning over the Fronto-parietal Network on Motor versus Visual Attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About