Top

Gepubliceerd in:

27-09-2016 | Original Article

How different location modes influence responses in a Simon-like task

Auteurs: Chunming Luo, Robert W. Proctor

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2017

Abstract

Spatial information can be conveyed not only by stimulus position but by the meaning of a location word or direction of an arrow. We examined whether all the location-, arrow- and word-based Simon effects or some of them can be observed when a location word or an arrow is presented eccentrically and a left–right keypress is made to indicate its ink color. Results showed that only the location-based Simon effect was observed for location words, whereas an additional smaller arrow-based Simon effect, compared to the location-based Simon effect was observed, for arrows. These results showed spatial location, arrow direction, and location word stimulus dimensions affect response position codes in a spatial-to-verbal priority order, consistent with the possibility that they can activate mode-specific spatial representations.

vorige artikel The role of executive control in the activation of manual affordances

volgende artikel Mobilizing cognition for speeded action: try-harder instructions promote motivated readiness in the constant-foreperiod paradigm

Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.PubMed

Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 853–861.PubMed

De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., Vandorpe, S., & Custers, R. (2005). Further evidence for the role of mode-independent short-term associations in spatial Simon effects. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 659–666.CrossRefPubMed

De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731–750.PubMed

Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J, & Milliken, B. (2007). Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 348–262.

Gibson, B. S., & Kingstone, A. (2006). Visual attention and the semantics of space: Beyond central and peripheral cues. Psychological Science, 17, 622–627.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280–290.CrossRef

Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365.CrossRefPubMed

Khalid, S., & Ansorge, U. (2013). The Simon effect of spatial words in eye movements: Comparison of vertical and horizontal effects and of eye and finger responses. Vision Research, 86, 6–14.CrossRefPubMed

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMed

Lameira, A. P., Pereira, A., Fraga-Filho, R. S., & Gawryszewski, L. G. (2015). Stimulus–response compatibility with body parts: A study with hands. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 2127–2132.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M.-C., Gray, D., Jardin, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2014). Correspondence effects are modulated primarily by object location not grasping affordance. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 679–698.CrossRef

Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523–553.CrossRefPubMed

Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.CrossRef

Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S-R associations strength and relative timing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 95–136.CrossRefPubMed

Luo, C., Lupiáñez, J., Fu, X., & Weng, X. (2010a). Spatial Stroop and spatial orienting: The role of onset vs. offset cues. Psychological Research, 74, 277–290.CrossRefPubMed

Luo, C., Lupiáñez, J., Funes, M. J., & Fu, X. (2010). Modulation of spatial Stroop by object-based attention but not by space-based attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 516–530.

Luo, C., Lupiáñez, J., Funes, M. J., & Fu, X. (2011). The modulation of spatial congruency by object-based attention: Analysing the “locus” of the modulation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2455–2469.CrossRefPubMed

Luo, C., Lupiáñez, J., Funes, M. J., & Fu, X. (2013). Reduction of the spatial Stroop effect by peripheral cueing as a function of the presence/absence of placeholders. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e69456.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Luo, C., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). Asymmetry of congruency effects in spatial Stroop tasks can be eliminated. Acta Psychologica, 143, 7–13.CrossRefPubMed

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.CrossRefPubMed

Marotta, A., Lupiáñez, J., Martella, D., & Casagrande, M. (2012). Eye gaze versus arrows as spatial cues: Two qualitatively different modes of attentional selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 326–335.PubMed

Masaki, H., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology, 37, 464–472.CrossRefPubMed

Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.CrossRefPubMed

Miles, J. D., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Correlations between spatial compatibility effects: are arrows more like locations or words? Psychological Research, 76, 777–791.CrossRefPubMed

Miles, J. D., Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Dilution of compatibility effects in Simon-type tasks depends on categorical similarity between distractors and diluters. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1598–1606.CrossRef

Notebaert, W., De Moor, W., Gevers, W., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2007). Newvisuospatial associations by training verbospatial mappings in the first language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1183–1188.CrossRef

Pellicano, A., Lugli, L., Baroni, G., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). The Simon effect with conventional signals: A time-course analysis. Experimental Psychology, 56, 219–227.CrossRefPubMed

Peng, G., & Wang, W. S.-Y. (2011). Hemisphere lateralization is influenced by bilingual status and composition of words. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1981–1986.CrossRefPubMed

Proctor, R. W., Marble, J. G., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2000). Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: Effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect. Psychological Research, 64, 11–24.CrossRefPubMed

Proctor, R. W., Yamaguchi, M., Zhang, Y., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2009). Influence of visual stimulus mode on transfer of acquired spatial associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 434–445.CrossRefPubMed

Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461.CrossRefPubMed

Shimamura, A. (1987). Word comprehension and naming: An analysis of English and Japanese orthographies. American Journal of Psychology, 100, 15–40.CrossRef

Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89–143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Virzi, R. A., & Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory & Cognition, 13, 304–319.CrossRef

Vu, K. P. L., Ngo, T. K., Minakata, K., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). Shared spatial representations for physical locations and location words in bilinguals’ primary language. Memory & Cognition, 38, 713–722.CrossRef

Wang, X., Du, F., He, X., & Zhang, K. (2014). Enhanced spatial stimulus–response mapping near the hands: The Simon effect is modulated by hand-stimulus proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 22–52.

Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus–response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201–1207.

Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119, 272–303.CrossRefPubMed

Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193–205.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: How different location modes influence responses in a Simon-like task
Auteurs: Chunming Luo
Robert W. Proctor
Publicatiedatum: 27-09-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0809-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2017

Do experts see it in slow motion? Altered timing of action simulation uncovers domain-specific perceptual processing in expert athletes

The role of executive control in the activation of manual affordances

The effect of facial expressions on peripersonal and interpersonal spaces

A kinematic examination of hand perception

Hitting is male, giving is female: automatic imitation and complementarity during action observation

Approaching behavior reduces gender differences in the mental rotation performance