Top

Gepubliceerd in:

28-06-2024 | Research

Different grasping experiences affect mapping effects but not correspondence effects between stimulus size and response location

Auteurs: Melanie Richter, Peter Wühr

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2024

Abstract

The so-called spatial-size association of response codes (SSARC) effect denotes that humans respond faster and more accurately with a left response to physically small stimuli and a right response to physically large stimuli, as compared to the opposite mapping. According to an application of the CORE principle to the SSARC effect, the habit to grasp larger/heavier objects with one’s dominant hand and smaller/lighter objects with one’s non-dominant hand creates spatial-size associations. We investigated if grasping habits play a causal role in the formation of spatial-size associations by testing if the mapping of a preceding object-grasping task affects the size of the SSARC effect in subsequent choice-response tasks with keypress responses. In the object-grasping task, participants were instructed to grasp wooden cubes of variable size either according to a compatible (small-left; large-right) or according to an incompatible (small-right; large-left) mapping. In the choice-response tasks, participants responded with left or right keypresses to the size or color of a small or large stimulus. The results showed that participants with the compatible mapping in the object-grasping task showed a larger SSARC effect in the size discrimination task, but not in the color discrimination task, than participants with the incompatible mapping in the object-grasping task. Results suggest that a short period of practice with different size-location mappings can modulate size-location links used for controlled S–R translation, but not links underlying automatic S–R translation. In general, the results support the hypothesis that grasping habits play a causal role in the formation of spatial-size associations.

vorige artikel Correction to: A kinematically complex multi‑articular motor skill for investigating implicit motor learning

volgende artikel Inhibition of cued but not executed task sets depends on cue-task compatibility and practice

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Please note that the original sample size was seventy-six but one data set (no. 73) was excluded because this participant had inadvertently been tested twice.

The size of the objects was slightly larger than in our previous studies, in which the small stimulus had a side length of 2 cm, and the large object had a side length of 4 cm (e.g., Wühr & Seegelke, 2018). Otherwise, the stimulus material and procedure matched those of our previous studies.

We varied the duration of the fixation point, to keep participants more alert, and to avoid that participants responded in a constant rhythm.

Please note that, in both choice-response tasks, task order affected neither any main effects nor interactions, which indicates that completing the size discrimination task according to a mapping contrary to the mapping in the object-grasping task did not diminish the previous manipulation.

In an exploratory analysis, we compared the size of the SSARC effects after a grasping task with compatible or incompatible mapping with the size of the SSARC effect without a preceding grasping task (Seegelke et al., 2023, Experiment 1, parallel-arms condition). We observed a significant reduction of the SSARC effect after an incompatible mapping in the grasping task relative to the condition without grasping task, t(172) = 2.609, p = .010, d = 0.497, but no difference between the SSARC effect after a compatible mapping in the grasping task relative to the condition without grasping task, t(172) = 0.244, p = .808, d = 0.047.

Alluisi, E. A., & Warm, J. S. (1990). Things that go together: A review of stimulus–Response compatibility and related effects. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–Response compatibility (pp. 3-30). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61217-0

Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus–response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36(8), 731–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00002-5CrossRefPubMed

Belletier, C., Davranche, K., Tellier, I. S., et al. (2015). Choking under monitoring pressure: Being watched by the experimenter reduces executive attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1410–1416.CrossRef

Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94(2), 265–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.265CrossRefPubMed

Brebner, J. (1973). S–R compatibility and changes in RT with practice. Acta Psychologica, 37(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(73)90023-1CrossRef

Campbell, J. I. D., & Thompson, V. A. (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavioral Research Methods, 44, 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0CrossRef

Cousineau, D. (2017). Varieties of confidence intervals. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0214-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., & Mehler, J. (1990). Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 626–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.16.3.626CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, M. H., & Shaki, S. (2014). Spatial associations in numerical cognition: From single digits to arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(8), 1461–1483. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.927515CrossRef

Fischer, M. H., Mills, R. A., & Shaki, S. (2010). How to cook a SNARC: Number placement in text rapidly changes spatial–numerical associations. Brain and Cognition, 72(3), 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.10.010CrossRefPubMed

Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S–R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(6), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054967CrossRefPubMed

Gevers, W., & Lammertyn, J. (2005). The hunt for SNARC. Psychology Science, 47, 10–21.

Gevers, W., Verguts, T., Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2006). Numbers and space: A computational model of the SNARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.32CrossRefPubMed

Heuer, H., Seegelke, C., & Wühr, P. (2023). Staggered onsets of processing relevant and irrelevant stimulus features produce different dynamics of congruency effects. Journal of Cognition. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). StimuluS–Response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.855CrossRefPubMed

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility––A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253CrossRefPubMed

Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2014). Bayesian model comparison. In M. D. Lee & E.-J. Wagenmakers (Eds.), Bayesian Cognitive Modeling––A Practical Course (pp. 101–117). Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(10), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01530-8CrossRefPubMed

Pitt, B., & Casasanto, D. (2014). Experiential origins of the mental number line. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0k1763tg

Pitt, B., & Casasanto, D. (2020). The correlations in experience principle: How culture shapes concepts of time and number. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(6), 1048–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000696CrossRefPubMed

Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). StimuluS–Response compatibility principles. Data, theory, and application. Taylor & Francis https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203022795

Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416CrossRefPubMed

Ren, P., Nicholls, M. R., Ma, Y., & Chen, L. (2011). Size matters: Non-numerical magnitude affects the spatial coding of response. PLoS One, 6(8), e23553. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023553CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Richter, M., & Wühr, P. (2023). Associations between physical size and space are strongly asymmetrical. Scientific Reports, 13, 16256. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43313-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225CrossRef

Seegelke, C., Richter, M., Heed, T., & Wühr, P. (2023). Exploring the response code in a compatibility effect between physical size and left/right responses: The hand is more important than location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 49(11), 1485–1502. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001162CrossRef

Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586CrossRefPubMed

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651CrossRef

Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Pearson, 18, 643.

Weis, T., Theobald, S., Schmitt, A., van Leeuwen, C., & Lachmann, T. (2018). There’s a SNARC in the size congruity task. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wühr, P., & Seegelke, C. (2018). Compatibility between physical stimulus size and left–right responses: small is left and large is right. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.19CrossRef

Wühr, P., & Richter, M. (2022). Relative, not absolute, stimulus size is responsible for a correspondence effect between physical stimulus size and left/right responses. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84, 1342–1358. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02490-7CrossRef

Wühr, P., Richter, M., & Seegelke, C. (2024). Handedness and effector strength modulate a compatibility effect between stimulus size and response position with manual and vocal responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 50(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001185CrossRefPubMed

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269CrossRefPubMed

Zhang, H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimuluS–Response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38(3), 386–432. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0703CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Different grasping experiences affect mapping effects but not correspondence effects between stimulus size and response location
Auteurs: Melanie Richter
Peter Wühr
Publicatiedatum: 28-06-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01990-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2024

Inhibition of cued but not executed task sets depends on cue-task compatibility and practice

Open Access
Research

On finding one’s way: a comment on Bock et al. (2024)

Open Access
Research

Sequential and domain-specific processing mechanisms for dual cognitive-emotional conflict

Research

Effect of additional tasks on the reaction time of braking responses in simulated car driving: beyond the PRP effect

Research

The dual nature of working memory deficits: methamphetamine abusers have more impaired social working memory capacity than canonical working memory capacity

Research

Effects of different types of leisure activities on working memory across the adult lifespan

Open Access
Research