Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2003 | Original Article

Temporal response-effect compatibility

Auteur: Wilfried Kunde

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2003

Abstract.

This study investigated the impact of duration-varying response effects on the generation and execution of duration-varying responses. Participants performed short or long keypresses which produced auditory effects of corresponding duration (short response ->short tone, long response ->long tone) or of noncorresponding duration (short response ->long tone, long response ->short tone). Experiment 1 revealed faster responding with a corresponding than with a noncorresponding Response-Effect (R-E) mapping; that is, a temporal R-E compatibility effect. Additionally, increasing effect duration increased response latencies, whereas it decreased keypress duration. Experiment 2 showed that the influence of temporal R-E compatibility persists even when responses are cued in advance, suggesting that at least part of it originates from response generation processes occurring later than a traditional response selection stage. These findings corroborate and complement effect-based theories of action control which assume that the selection, initiation, and execution of movements is mediated by anticipation of their sensory effects.

vorige artikel Textural properties corresponding to visual perception based on the correlation mechanism in the visual system

volgende artikel Influences of response-activating stimuli and passage of time on the Simon effect

Whereas dit responses profited considerably from a compatible (short) tone in comparison to an incompatible (long) tone, dah responses profited only marginally from a compatible (long) tone in comparison to an incompatible (short) tone. It is thus tempting to speculate that the R-E compatibility effect is stronger for dit than for dah reactions. Yet, such an inference is not possible. Because of potential baseline differences between individual responses or response effects, the only valid measure for a compatibility effect is the interaction between them, which includes all responses and effects and thereby eliminates all baseline differences between them. It is therefore not meaningful to asses a compatibility influence for either a single stimulus, response, or response effect in isolation (cf. Kornblum & Lee, 1995, p.860 for a comprehensive discussion of this methodical issue).

This observation additionally provides evidence against a perceptual explanation of R-E compatibility effects: One might argue that the stimuli in the present experiments acquire the meaning of the responses they are assigned to (e.g. a red stimulus may become "short" because it required a short response). The present results may thus be construed as a kind of (acquired) S-R compatibility effect rather than an R-E compatibility effect (cf. Hasbroucq & Guiard, 1991). Previous research has already rejected this account by demonstrating R-E compatibility effects without response-specific stimuli, which makes the acquisition of response-specific stimulus meaning impossible (cf. Kunde, 2001a, Experiment 3). Moreover, the informative cues in the present study were 100% valid, turning the subsequent stimuli functionally into GO-Signals. Stimulus color was thus irrelevant and with all likelihood ignored. A perceptual explanation faces serious problems in explaining why R-E compatibility effects persist even 2000 ms after cue presentation, i.e. long after the perceptual analysis of the cue has finished.

Abrams, R.A. & Balota, D.A. (1991). Mental Chronometry: Beyond reaction time. Psychological Science, 2, 153–157.

Ansorge, U. (2002). Spatial intention-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 109. 285–299.

Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (1997). Delayed auditory feedback in synchronization. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29(1) 35–46.

Aschersleben, G., Stenneken, P., Cole, J., & Prinz, W. (2002). Timing mechanisms in sensorimotor synchronization. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention and Performance XIX (pp. 227–244). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Desmurget, M. & Grafton, S. (2000). Forward modelling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 423–431.

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

Glover, S. & Dixon, P. (2001). Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3): 560–572.

Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review. 77(2) 73–99.

Grosjean, M. & Mordkoff, T. (2001). Temporal Stimulus-Response compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 27. 870–878.

Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(1) 246–266.

Henry, F. M., & Rogers, D. E. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a "memory drum" theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 31, 448–458.

Hoffmann, J. (1993). Vorhersage und Erkenntnis [Anticipation and Cognition]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stöcker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in Serial Reaction Time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2) 470–482.

Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55(4) 270–279.

Hommel, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon-Effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 764–775.

Hommel, B. (1996a). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research 59(3) 176–186.

Hommel, B. (1996b). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49A(3) 546–571.

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). A Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A Framework for Percpetion and Action Planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.

Hommel, B. & W. Prinz (1997) Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North Holland: Elsevier.

Ivry, R. (1986). Force and timing components of the motor program. Journal of Motor Behavior. 18. 449–474.

James, W. (1981 (orig. 1890)). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(5) 1015–1027.

Koch, I. & Kunde, W. (2003) Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory and Cognition (in press).

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulusesponse compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2) 253–270.

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. 855–875.

Kunde, W. (2001a). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 27, (2), 387–394.

Kunde, W. (2001b). Exploring the hyphen in ideo-motor action. Commentary in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 24, 891–892.

Kunde, W. & Stöcker, C. (2002). A Simon effect for Stimulus-Response Duration. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A: Human Experimental Psychology. 55 (A). 581–592.

Kunde, W., Hoffmann, J. & Zellmann, P. (2002). The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica. 109 (2). 137–155.

Kunde, W., Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation and execution of actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A. Human Experimental Psychology (in press).

Mordkoff, T., Miller, J., & Roch, A-C. (1996). Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 25–41.

Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2) 129–154.

Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L. G., & Umiltà, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62(1) 89–100.

Sanders, A. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331–354). Amsterdam: North Holland.

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

Spijkers, W. A., & Walter, A. (1985). Response processing stages in choice reactions. Acta Psychologica, 58, 191–204.

Stöcker, C., Hoffmann, J. & A. Sebald. (2003). The Influence of Response-Effect Compatibility in a Serial Reaction Time Task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A. Human Experimental Psychology (in press).

Tlauka, M. & McKenna, F.P. (1998). Mental imagery yields stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica. 94. 227–252.

Ulrich, R., Rinkenauer, G., & Miller, J. (1998). Effects of stimulus duration and intensity on simple reaction time and response force. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 915–928

Titel: Temporal response-effect compatibility
Auteur: Wilfried Kunde
Publicatiedatum: 01-08-2003
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2003
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0114-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract.

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2003

Textural properties corresponding to visual perception based on the correlation mechanism in the visual system

Perceptual latency priming by masked and unmasked stimuli: Evidence for an attentional interpretation

Influences of response-activating stimuli and passage of time on the Simon effect

A latent class model for individual differences in the interpretation of conditionals

Unique transitions between stimuli and responses in SRT tasks: Evidence for the primacy of response predictions

The construction of spatial situation models during reading