Spatial relationships and S-R compatibility

Brebner, J. Bartlet; Shephard, Maxine S.; Cairney, Peter

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(72)90040-6

Cited by 121 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Spatial coding is implicated by such findings as that the compatibility effect still occurs when the arms are crossed, so that the left key is pressed with the right hand and the right key with the left hand (see, e.g., Brebner, Shephard, & Cairney, 1972;, and when the two response locations or two stimulus locations are located in the same hemispace (see, e.g., Nicoletti, Anzola, Luppino, Rizzolatti, & Umilta, 1982;Proctor, VanZandt, Lu, & Weeks, 1993). There seems to be unanimous agreement that at least part ofthe spatial compatibility effects can be attributed to an explicit S-R translation based on the task-defined mapping provided by the instructions (see Figure 1, top route).…”

Section: Stimulus-response Compatibility and The Simon Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Left or right keypresses to a relevant stimulus dimension are faster when the stimulus location, although irrelevant, corresponds with that of the response than when it does not. This phenomenon, called the Simon effect, persisted across 1,800trials of practice, although its magnitude was reduced, Practice with the relevant stimulus dimension presented at a centered location had little influence on the magnitude of the Simon effect when irrelevant location was varied subsequently, and practice with location irrelevant prior to performing with location relevant slowed responses, After practice responding to stimulus location with an incompatible spatial mapping, the Simon effect was reversed (i.e, responses were slower when stimulus location corresponded with response location) when location was made irrelevant. When the response keys were labeled according to the relevant stimulus dimension (the Hedge and Marsh [1975] task variation), this reversal from practice with a spatially incompatible mapping was found for both the congruent and the incongruent relevant stimulus-response mappings, Thus, task-defmed associations between stimulus location and response location affect performance when location is changed from relevant to irrelevant, apparently through producing automatic activation of the previously associated response,

show abstract

Section: Stimulus-response Compatibility and The Simon Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An explanation in terms of salient features and referential coding can accommodate the range of orthogonal SRC effects. and the right hand the left key, the SRC effect is independent of the slowing that results from crossing the limbs (see, e.g., Brebner, Shephard, & Cairney, 1972). Spatial coding can occur with respect to many frames of reference, and evidence suggests that the resulting SRC effects are a function of multiple codes (see, e.g., Hommel, 1994;Lamberts, Tavernier, & d'Ydewalle, 1992;Roswarski & Proctor, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects

Cho

Proctor

2003

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Usually, spatial SRC effects are quite robust and occur under a wide variety of conditions. For example, they have been reported when spatial position is a task-irrelevant stimulus feature (Simon & Rudell, 1967), when stimuli and responses are spatially congruent only with respect to their cognitive representations (Ridderinkhof, 1993), and when spatial stimuli and responses are coded in different frames of reference (Brebner, Shephard, & Cairney, 1972;Hommel & Lippa, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: The end-state comfort hypothesis

Lippa

Adam

2001

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors thank Fiorello Banci and Karl-Heinz Honsberg for constructing the stimulus and response device for the first three experiments, and Poldi-Eva Leo and Sabine Rau for conducting these experiments. Further, we thank Robert Goldstone and Richard Shiffrin for providing facilities to run the fourth experiment, Robert Proctor, Claire Michaels, Steven Yantis, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on a previous version of the article, and Robert Kennison for checking and improving the English. Correspondence should be addressed to Y. Lippa, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9660 (e-mail: lippa@psych.ucsb.edu).An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position:The This study presents an explanation of orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects that vary with hand or response location: the end-state comfort hypothesis. It posits that responses are spatially transformed and cognitively mapped onto the stimulus dimension according to relative hand posture, thereby mediating the pattern of facilitation and interference in response selection. In the first three experiments, we investigated the eccentricity effect, finding that responses by the left hand in left hemispace are faster with up-left/down-right mapping while responses by the right hand in right hemispace are faster with up-right/down-left mapping (Michaels & Schilder, 1991, Experiment 1). The endstate comfort hypothesis correctly predicted that the eccentricity effect occurred irrespective of the relative position of the stimulus and response device in the sagittal plane (Experiments 1 and 2), and that it reversed when the stimulus-response set was reversed, regardless of the relative position of the stimulus and response device in the fronto-parallel plane (Experiments 2 and 3). Experiment 4 shows a new orthogonal SRC effect that was predicted by the end-state comfort hypothesis. Our results are inconsistent with other explanations, such as the virtual-lines hypothesis and the salient-features hypothesis.

show abstract

Spatial relationships and S-R compatibility

Cited by 121 publications

References 14 publications

Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks

Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks

Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects

An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: The end-state comfort hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About