Abstract
Previous studies have shown that spatial compatibility is stronger in the left-right than in the above-below dimension. This left-right dominance cannot be attributed to a better representation of the effectors in left-right than in above-below locational codes or to the fact that incompatible left-right stimulus-response pairings cross the body midline, whereas incompatible above-below ones do not. Nicoletti and Umiltà (1985) proposed that the left-right dominance should be attributed to the allocation of attention to the more difficult discrimination, which, in vision, is that concerning the left-right dimension. This attentional hypothesis was tested in the present study, in which we used the auditory modality. We reasoned that because in the auditory modality the above-below discriminations are more difficult than left-right ones, attention should be preferentially allocated to the former. Therefore, in audition an above-below dominance should replace the left-right dominance observed in vision. Experiments 1 and 2 showed a clear-cut compatibility effect in the auditory modality for both the left-right and above-below dimensions. Experiment 3 showed that spatial compatibility was still stronger for the left-right than for the above-below dimension. Since the left-right one proved to be the more discriminable dimension, this finding rules out the attentional hypothesis, at least in the version originally proposed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Broadley, G., &Kirkland, J. (1979). Sound localization accuracy on vertical and horizontal planes.Perceptual & Motor Skills,49, 354.
Corbalus, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1983).The ambivalent mind. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Gardner, M. B., &Gardner, R. S. (1973). Problem of localization in the median plane: Effect of pinnae cavity occlusion.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,53, 400–408.
Holender, D. (1980). Interference between a vocal and a manual response to the same stimulus. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.),Tutorials in motor behavior. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Ladavas, E., &Moscovitch, M. (1984). Must egocentric and environmental frames of reference be aligned to produce spatial S-R compatibility effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 205–215.
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 & Performance,8, 664–673.
Nicoletti, R., &Umilta, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 333–343.
Nicoletti, R., &Umilta, C. (1985). Responding with hand and foot: The right-left prevale nce in spatial compatibility is still present.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 211–216.
Nicoletti, R., Umilta, C., &Ladavas, E. (1984). Compatibility due to the coding of the relative position of the effectors.Acta Psychologica,57, 133–143.
Oldfield, S. R., &Parker, S. P. A. (1984). Acuity of sound localisation: A topography of auditory space: I. Normal hearing conditions.Perception,13, 581–600.
Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., &Klein, R. (1976). Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance.Psychological Review,83, 157–171.
Richards, J. T. (1978). Interitem structure and the facilitation of simultaneous comparison.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 72–87.
Royer, F. L. (1981). Detection of symmetry.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 1186–1210.
Sholl, M. J., &Egeth, H. E. (1981). Right-left confusion in the adult: A verbal labeling effect.Memory & Cognition,9, 339–350.
Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 174–176.
Simon, J. R., Mewaldt, S. P., Acosta, E., Jr., &Hu, J. M. (1976). Processing auditory information: Interaction of two population stereotypes.Journal of Applied Psychology,60, 354–358.
Simon, J. R., Sly, P. E., &Vilapakkam, S. (1981). Effect of compatibility of S-R mapping on reactions toward the stimulus source.Acta Psychologica,47,63–811.
Teichner, W. H., &Krebs, M. J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time.Psychological Review,81, 75–98.
Umilta, 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.
Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 354–360.
Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology,93, 163–168.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., Tressoldi, E.P. et al. Why are left-right spatial codes easier to form than above-below ones?. Perception & Psychophysics 43, 287–292 (1988). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207872
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207872