Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection

Abstract

In studies of human information processing, the processing stages of stimulus identification and response initiation are typically distinguished from a central processing stage that is often called response selection. Issues regarding response selection have been investigated thoroughly in two areas of research, stimulus-response compatibility(SRC) and psychologicalrefractory period (PRP) effects. Fitts and Seeger (1953) were the first to demonstrate SRC effects, showing that performance depends not only on the individual properties of the stimuli and responses but also on their relation. A large empirical base regarding SRC effects exists, along with relatively sophisticated theoretical accounts of how response selection in single-task performance is affected by compatibility relations. Telford (1931) was the first to demonstrate the PRP effect, in which, when two tasks must be performed on successive stimuli, the response to the second stimulus is delayed when the interval between stimulus onsets is short. As for SRC effects, substantial empirical and theoretical work on the PRP effect has been conducted on how response selection for one task is affected by response selection for another.Although considerable research has been conducted on the SRC and PRP effects individually, few experiments have examined the two effects jointly. A reason for the lack of studies manipulating SRC in the PRP paradigm may lie in the belief that response selection for each task occurs the same way as it does in a single-task context. However, as Duncan (1979) pointed out, "In any PRP situation, the response sets of two single tasks have been combined to give a larger total set. It is perhaps unreasonable to suppose that this leaves unaffected the complexity of response choice" (p. 225). Moreover, Hommel (1998) demonstrated that considerable interaction occurs between the two tasks. The implication is that one cannot assume that response selection for each task in dual-task contexts is performed in the same manner as when each task is performed alone. Systematic examination of SRC effects in the PRP paradigm is necessary to provide a more complete understanding of the response-selection mechanism.The purpose of the present paper, therefore, was to review SRC and PRP in the literature as they relate to issues of response selection and, most importantly, to examine in detail those studies that have looked at SRC effects in the PRP paradigm for any additional insights into the nature of response selection that they afford. We begin by reviewing SRC effects and the models developed to account for them. Such effects have been obtained for relevant and irWe thank Bernhard Hommel, Hal Pashler, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M.-C. Lien, Mail Stop 262-4, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 or to R. W. Proctor, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: ...

The benefit of no choice: goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing

“…Assuming a perceptual locus, the predicted underadditive interaction of SOA and task type was found in both experiments, despite different implementations of the tasks. Although the findings of Experiment 1 and 2 are in principle also compatible with an explanation in terms of response activation (Hommel, 1998;Lien & Proctor, 2002), several arguments support a perceptual source. First, in Experiment 3 the critical manipulation interacted with a perceptual factor and the same interaction was reported by Berlyne (1957a).…”

“…While a pre-central locus has most often been conceptualized as perceptual processing, Hommel (1998) and Lien and Proctor (2002) suggested to subdivide the central stage of processing into response activation and response selection to explain backward-crosstalk effects. Response selection is seen as a bottleneck, but response activation is able to run in parallel with other processes.…”

Equivalence of cognitive processes in brain imaging and behavioral studies: evidence from task switching

“…Our valence manipulation appears to tap these processing aspects, because in the bivalent condition, stimulus selection, stimulus-response transformation, and response selection have to proceed in the face of a distractor (such as in the Stroop color-word task, see MacLeod, 1991, for review). Similar processes may underlie stimulus-response compatibility effects (for review, see Kornblum et al, 1990;Lien and Proctor, 2002). However, our data clearly indicate that this aspect is the same across testing conditions (i.e., no interaction including the valence variable and the experimental group variable was significant), so it cannot account for the slowing.…”

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

“…However, interactions between task-irrelevant stimulus features and the responses features on RT (Simon, 1969;Simon & Rudell, 1967) are less conveniently accommodated as are interactions between the features of stimuli of one task and the features of responses of a temporally overlapping second task (Hommel, 1998). To account for these interactive effects, dual-route models are often invoked in which stimulus information automatically activates representations of response options through a direct pathway that bypasses standard response selection stages (Eimer, Hommel, & Prinz, 1995;Hommel, 1998;Lien & Proctor, 2002). The indirect pathway identifies the correct response according to pre-specified rules typically learned through task instruction.…”

“…In principle, these dual-route models can account for a broad array of empirical phenomena (De Jong, Liang, & Lauber, 1995;Lien & Proctor, 2002;). However, they are difficult to test for multiple reasons: a single discrete stage processing pathway is capable of producing complex patterns of RTs in response to various experimental manipulations (see , Miller, 1988), the relative contributions of the two pathways are difficult to disentangle, and the "direct pathway" appears malleable and at least partially controlled (Chen & Melara, 2009).…”