Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The relative functional significance of attention shifts and attentional zooming for the coding of stimulus position in spatial compatibility tasks is demonstrated by proposing and testing experimentally a tentative explanation of the absence of a Simon effect in Experiment 3 of Umiltà and Liotti (1987). It is assumed that the neutral point of the spatial frame of reference for coding spatial position is at the position where attention is focussed immediately before exposition of the stimulus pattern. If a stimulus pattern is exposed to the right or the left of this position a spatial compatibility effect can be observed when the stimulus-response pairing is incompatible. Generalizing from this, one can say that a spatial compatibility effect will be observed if the last step in attentional focussing of the stimulus attribute specifying the response is a horizontal or a vertical attention shift. If the last step in focussing is attentional zooming (change in the representational level attended to), the stimulus pattern is localized at the horizontal and the vertical positions where the last attention shift had positioned the focus. In this case the spatial code is neutral on these dimensions and so no spatial compatibility effect should result. To test this model we conducted two experiments. Experiment 1 replicated the finding of Umiltà and Liotti that there is no Simon effect in the condition with no delay between a positional cue (two small boxes on the left or right of a fixation cross) and the imperative stimulus, whereas in the condition with a delay of 500 ms a Simon effect was observed. In a comparison condition with a single, rather large cue instead of two small boxes (forcing attention to zoom in), no Simon effect was observed under either delay condition. Experiment 2 used a spatial compatibility task proper with the same experimental conditions as Experiment 1. But in contrast to those of Experiment 1, the results show strong compatibility effects in all cue and delay conditions. The absence of a Simon effect in some experimental conditions in Experiment 1 and the presence of a spatial compatibility effect proper in all conditions in Experiment 2 are consistently accounted for with the proposed attentional explanation of spatial coding and spatial compatibility effects.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arend, U., & Wandmacher, J. (1987). On the generality of logical recoding in spatial interference tasks.Acta Psychologica, 65, 193–210.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, D. W., & Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31A, 367–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brebner, J. (1973). S-R compatibility and change in RT with practice.Acta Psychologica, 37, 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchner, A. (1988). Räumliche Aufmerksamkeit: Einwände gegen das Lichtkegelmodell visueller Selektivität.Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 35, 523–545.

    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 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & Webb, J. M. (1989). Shifting of attentional focus within and about a visual display.Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 175–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber, H. E. L., van der Molen, M. W., Keuss, P. J. G., & Stoffels, E. J. (1986). An OR analysis of the tendency to react toward the stimulus source.Acta Psychologica, 61, 105–115.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M. (1951). Engineering psychology and equipment design. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.),Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1287–1340). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility. Correspondence among elements within stimulus and response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. (1980). Does oculomotor readiness mediate cognitive control of visual attention? In R. S. Nicherson (Ed.),Attention and performance VIII (pp. 259–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mewaldt, S. P., Connelly, C. L., & Simon, J. R. (1980). Response selection in choice reaction times: Test of a buffer model.Memory & Cognition, 8, 606–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostofsky, D. I. (1970). The semantics of attention. In D. E. Mostofsky (Ed.),Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis (pp. 9–24). New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O. (1980).Informationsselektion und Handlungssteuerung: Untersuchungen zur Funktionsgrundlage des Stroop-Interferenzphänomens. Bochum: Dissertation Universität Bochum.

  • Neumann, O. (1983).Über den Zusammenhang zwischen Enge und Selektivität der Aufmerksamkeit. Bochum: Bericht Nr. 19/1983, Psychologisches Institut der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Arbeitseinheit Kognitionspsychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O. (1987). Zur Funktion der selektiven Aufmerksamkeit für die Handlungsteuerung.Sprache und Kognition, 3, 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O. (1990). Visual attention and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.),Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    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. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., & Ladavas, E. (1984). Compatibility due to the coding of relative position of effectors.Acta Psychologica, 57, 133–143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Remington, R. W., & Pierce, L. (1984). Moving attention: Evidence for time-invariant shifts of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 393–399,

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, G. L., Sheehy, M. A., & Wilson, J. (1986). Gradients of spatial attention.Acta Psychologica, 61, 167–181.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1968). Effect of ear stimulated on reaction time and movement time.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 344–346.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1970). Stereotypic reactions in information processing. In L. E. Smith (Ed.),Psychology of motor learning (pp. 27–57). Chicago, IL: The Athletic Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Acosta, E., Mewaldt, S. P., & Speidel, C. R. (1976). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on the choice reaction time: Duration of the phenomenon and its relation to stages of processing.Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Craft, J. L., & Webster, J. B. (1973). Reaction toward the stimulus source: Analysis of correct response and errors over a five-day period.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 175–178.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolov, E. (1963).Perception and the conditioned reflex. New York: McMillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffer, T. H. (1988).Dynamische Aspekte der visuellen Aufmerksamkeit: Funktionelle Charakteristika der Fokussierdnderung vom Typ “Gummilinse” und ihre Beteiligung an der Entstehung der Dominanz globaler über lokale Merkmale. Bielefeld: Habilitationsschrift Universität Bielefeld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, J. T., & van Gelder, P. (1979). Implications of a transient-sustained dichotomy for the measurement of human performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 625–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsal, Y. (1983). Movements of attention across the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 523–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsal, Y., & Lavie, N. (1988). Attending to color and shape: The special role of location in selective visual processing.Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 15–21.

    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 codes. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.),Mechanisms of attention: 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 (pp. 89–116). 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, C. B., Juola, J. F., & Koshino, H. (1990). Voluntary allocation versus automatic capture of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 243–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, P. (1977).Entnahme der Identitäts- und Positionsinformation bei der Identifikation tachistoskopischer Buchstabenzeilen: Ein theoretischer und experimenteller Beitrag zur Grundlagenforschung des Lesens. Bochum: Dissertation Universität Bochum.

  • Wolff, P. (1985). Wahrnehmungslernen und Blickbewegungen. In O. Neumann (Ed.),Perspektiven der Kognitionspsychologie (pp. 63–111). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 601–621.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max-Planck-Institut für psychologische Forschung, Leopoldstrasse 24, W-8000, München 40, Germany

    Thomas H. Stoffer

Authors
  1. Thomas H. Stoffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stoffer, T.H. Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychol. Res 53, 127–135 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371820

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371820

Keywords

Search

Navigation