Skip to main content
Log in

Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In the Simon task the spatial position of the stimulus, though task irrelevant, influences speed of response. We (Umiltà & Nicoletti, 1992) proposed that the orienting of attention to the imperative stimulus produces a Stroop-like interference. This paper reports the results of three experiments that provide empirical support for two predictions of this hypothesis. One is that the stimulus spatial code is formed with relation to the position to which attention is directed. The other prediction is that the Simon effect is obtained on condition that attention can orient to the stimulus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Castiello, U., & Umiltà, C. (1990). Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing. Acta Psychologica, 73, 195–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & St James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 246–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasbroucq, T., Guiard, Y., & Ottomani, L. (1990). Principles of response determination. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 327–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427–439.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of single-channel bottleneck in dual task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, H. J., & Rabbit, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G, Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 664–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 333–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Leary, M. J., & Barber, P J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 830–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osman, A., Kornblum, S., & Meyer, D. E. (1990). Does motor programming necessitate response execution? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991 a). Procedural learning: Locus of practice effects in speeded choice-tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 20–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991 b). Procedural learning: Intertrial repetition effect in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltà, C. (1987). Reorienting of attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1990). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–88). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Sly, P. E., & Vilapakkam, S. (1981). Effect of compatibility of S-R mapping on reactions toward the stimulus source. Acta Psychologica, 47, 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichner, W. H., & Krebs, M. J., (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 81, 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C. (1991). Problems of the salient-features coding hypothesis: Comment on Weeks and Proctor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 83–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1985). Attention and coding effects in S-R compatibility due to irrelevant spatial cues. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 457–471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1992). An integrated model of the Simon effect. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junca de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.), Analytic approaches to human cognition (pp. 331–349). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Rizzolatti, G. (1991). Differential effects of central and peripheral cues on the reorienting of spatial attention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3, 247–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1988). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus-response compatibility effects. Neuropsychologia, 26, 435–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1990). Attentional processes in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 261–275). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 163–168.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Some of the results of Experiments 1 and 2 were reported briefly in Umiltà and Nicoletti (1992)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C. Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychol. Res 56, 144–150 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419701

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419701

Keywords

Navigation