Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial coding in two dimensions

  • Theoretical and Review Articles
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been growing interest in exploring human performance for situations in which stimuli and/or responses vary along both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Earlier studies indicated that there is a prevalence of the horizontal dimension over the vertical dimension in the spatial codes that are used for response selection. We review evidence about spatial coding for 2-D stimulus—response sets and accounts that have been proposed for explaining how it takes place. Particular attention is devoted to the relative salience account, which provides the most comprehensive explanation of 2-D spatial coding. We also evaluate the influence of speed of spatial code formation, number of reference frames, and learning on subjects’ performance in 2-D tasks.

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

  • Andre, A. D., &Wickens, C. D. (1990).Display-control compatibility in the cockpit: Guidelines for display layout analysis (Tech. Rep. ARL-90-12/NASA A3I-90-1). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., &Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account for the Simon effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,30, 365–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadley, G., &Kirkland, J. (1979). Sound localization accuracy on vertical and horizontal planes.Perceptual & Motor Skills,49, 354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y. S., &Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus—response compatibility effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 45–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., &Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus—response correspondence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 731–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, W. S. (1979). Coding left and right.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 42–51.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, G. (2000). Designing multifunction displays: An optimization approach.International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics,4, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heister, G., Schroeder-Heister, P., &Ehrenstein, W. H. (1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus—response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.),Stimulus—response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 117–143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1996). No prevalence of right—left over top—bottom spatial codes.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 102–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., &d’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus—response compatibility.Acta Psychologica,79, 115–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C.-H., &Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 174–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., Grandy, C. A., &Hauge, G. (1979). Why is telling right from left more difficult than telling above from below?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R. H., Maki, W. S., Jr., &Marsh, L. G. (1977). Processing locational and orientational information.Memory & Cognition,5, 602–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule-congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58A, 1023–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Memelink, J., &Hommel, B. (2005). Attention, instruction, and response representation.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,17, 674–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (in press). Tailoring perception and action to the task at hand.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (1985). Responding with hand and foot: The right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 211–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., Tressoldi, E. P., &Marzi, C. A. (1988). Why are left—right spatial codes easier to form than above—below ones?Perception & Psychophysics,43, 287–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield, S. R., &Parker, S. P. A. (1984). Acuity of sound localization. A topography of auditory space: I. Normal hearing conditions.Perception,13, 581–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., Koch, I., & Vu, K.-P. L. (in press). Effects of precuing horizontal and vertical dimensions on right—left prevalence.Memory & Cognition.

  • Proctor, R. W., &Lu, C.-H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks.Memory & Cognition,27, 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignments of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 623–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (1986). Salient-feature coding operations in spatial precuing tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,12, 277–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., &Nicoletti, R. (2003). Does right—left prevalence occur for the Simon effect?Perception & Psychophysics,65, 1318–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roswarski, T. E., &Proctor, R. W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks.Psychological Research,59, 196–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubichi, S., Gherri, E., Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (2005). Modulation of the vertical Simon effect in two-dimensional tasks: The effect of learning.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,17, 686–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Pelosi, A., &Umiltà, C. (2004). Right—left prevalence effect with horizontal and vertical effectors.Perception & Psychophysics,66, 255–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (2005). Right—left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes.Psychological Research,69, 167–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sholl, M. J., &Egeth, H. E. (1981). Right—left confusion in the adult: A verbal labeling effect.Memory & Cognition,9, 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., &Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S—R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing.Journal of Applied Psychology,51, 300–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, L. H. (2000). Coordinate transformations for eye and arm movements in the brain.Current Opinion in Neurobiology,10, 747–754.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.),Attention and performance XI (pp. 456–471). 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. 89–143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vu, K.-P. L., Pellicano, A., &Proctor, R. W. (2005). No overall right—left prevalence for horizontal and vertical Simon effects.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 929–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vu, K.-P. L., &Proctor, R. W. (2001). Determinants of the right—left and top—bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 813–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vu, K.-P. L., &Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in twodimensional stimulus—response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 815–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W., &Pick, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: Right—left prevalence with bimanual responses.Psychological Research,64, 25–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze Sociali, Cognitive e Quantitative, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via Giglioli Valle 9, 42100, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Sandro Rubichi

  2. California State University, Long Beach, California

    Kim-Phuong L. Vu

  3. Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Roberto Nicoletti

  4. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

    Robert W. Proctor

Authors
  1. Sandro Rubichi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kim-Phuong L. Vu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberto Nicoletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert W. Proctor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandro Rubichi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rubichi, S., Vu, KP.L., Nicoletti, R. et al. Spatial coding in two dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 201–216 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193832

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193832

Keywords

Search

Navigation