Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 4/2004

01-08-2004 | Original Article

Actions blind to conceptually overlapping stimuli

Auteurs: Wilfried Kunde, Peter Wühr

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2004

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Participants are worse at identifying spatial symbols (arrowheads) while performing spatially compatible manual key presses. The present experiments investigated the generality of this “blindness effect” to response-compatible stimuli. In Experiment 1 a left key press deteriorated the identification of left-pointing arrows, and a right key press deteriorated the perception of right-pointing arrows, independent of the hands used to press the key. Thus the blindness effect is based on codes of the distal response location rather than on the body-intrinsic anatomical connection of the hands. Experiment 2 extended the blindness effect to verbal responses and written position words (left, right, up, down). Vocalizing a position word blinded to directly compatible position words (e.g., left-left), but not to orthogonally compatible position words (e.g., left-down). This result suggests that the use of identical stimulus-response codes, and not the use of saliency-matching but distinct codes, suffices to produce blindness effects. Finally, Experiment 3 extended the blindness phenomenon beyond the spatial domain by demonstrating blindness between saying color words and perceiving color patches. Altogether, the experiments revealed action-induced blindness to be a phenomenon of broad empirical validity occurring whenever action and perception afford simultaneous access to the same conceptual codes.
Literatuur
go back to reference Altarriba, J. & Soltano, E. (1996). Repetition blindness and bilingual memory: Token individuation for translation equivalents. Memory & Cognition, 24, 700–711. Altarriba, J. & Soltano, E. (1996). Repetition blindness and bilingual memory: Token individuation for translation equivalents. Memory & Cognition, 24, 700–711.
go back to reference Cho, Y. S. & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45–73. Cho, Y. S. & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45–73.
go back to reference Eder, A. B., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). Affektive Blindheit gegenüber reaktionskompatiblen Stimuli. [Affective blindness for response-compatible stimuli]. In J. Golz, F. Faul, & R. Mausfeld (Eds). Experimentelle Psychologie. Abstracts der 45. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen (p. 77). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. Eder, A. B., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). Affektive Blindheit gegenüber reaktionskompatiblen Stimuli. [Affective blindness for response-compatible stimuli]. In J. Golz, F. Faul, & R. Mausfeld (Eds). Experimentelle Psychologie. Abstracts der 45. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen (p. 77). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.
go back to reference Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues on stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues on stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
go back to reference Hommel, B., & Müsseler, J. (2000). Welche Handlungen machen uns blind wofür? Wie Handlungsplanung unsere Wahrnehmung beeinflusst [Which actions blind us for what? How action planning affects perception]. In D. Vorberg, A. Fuchs, T. Futterer, A., Heinecke, U., Heinrichs, U. Mattler, & S. Töllner (Eds.). Experimentelle Psychologie. Abstracts der 42. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst (p. 28). Hommel, B., & Müsseler, J. (2000). Welche Handlungen machen uns blind wofür? Wie Handlungsplanung unsere Wahrnehmung beeinflusst [Which actions blind us for what? How action planning affects perception]. In D. Vorberg, A. Fuchs, T. Futterer, A., Heinecke, U., Heinrichs, U. Mattler, & S. Töllner (Eds.). Experimentelle Psychologie. Abstracts der 42. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst (p. 28).
go back to reference Hommel., B., & Müsseler, J. (2003). Action-feature integration blinds to feature-overlapping perceptual events. Manuscript submitted for publication. Hommel., B., & Müsseler, J. (2003). Action-feature integration blinds to feature-overlapping perceptual events. Manuscript submitted for publication.
go back to reference Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 869–937. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 869–937.
go back to reference Kanwisher. N. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117–143.PubMed Kanwisher. N. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117–143.PubMed
go back to reference Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1297–1303. Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1297–1303.
go back to reference Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.PubMed Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.PubMed
go back to reference Morin, R.E., & Grant, D. (1955). Learning and performance on a key-pressing task as a function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 39–47.PubMed Morin, R.E., & Grant, D. (1955). Learning and performance on a key-pressing task as a function of the degree of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 39–47.PubMed
go back to reference Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.PubMed Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.PubMed
go back to reference Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 125–129. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 125–129.
go back to reference Müsseler, J., & Wühr, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In: W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention and Performance, Vol. XIX (pp. 520–537). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Müsseler, J., & Wühr, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In: W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention and Performance, Vol. XIX (pp. 520–537). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Prinz, W. (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 7, 743–767.CrossRef Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Prinz, W. (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 7, 743–767.CrossRef
go back to reference Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2001). Can actions affect perceptual processing? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 137–154. Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2001). Can actions affect perceptual processing? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 137–154.
go back to reference Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, U., & Ladavas. E. (1984). Compatibility due to coding of the relative position of the effectors. Acta Psychologica, 57, 133–143.PubMed Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, U., & Ladavas. E. (1984). Compatibility due to coding of the relative position of the effectors. Acta Psychologica, 57, 133–143.PubMed
go back to reference Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam. North-Holland. Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam. North-Holland.
go back to reference Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 65–74.PubMed Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 65–74.PubMed
go back to reference Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C. & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Can blindness to response-compatible stimuli be observed in the absence of a response? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 431–440.CrossRef Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C. & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). Can blindness to response-compatible stimuli be observed in the absence of a response? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 431–440.CrossRef
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference Vu, K. L., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial incompatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses. Psychological Research, 64, 25–40.CrossRefPubMed Vu, K. L., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial incompatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses. Psychological Research, 64, 25–40.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355–366. Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355–366.
go back to reference Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1260.CrossRefPubMed Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1260.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Actions blind to conceptually overlapping stimuli
Auteurs
Wilfried Kunde
Peter Wühr
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2004
Uitgeverij
Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2004
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0156-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2004

Psychological Research 4/2004 Naar de uitgave