Abstract
One of the most important findings in recent years regarding response selection is that stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects occur for situations in which stimulus and response sets vary along orthogonal dimensions. For two-choice tasks, two types of orthogonal SRC effects are found: an overall advantage for the up-right/down-left mapping, and mapping preferences that vary as a function of position of the response apparatus and responding hand. We review evidence regarding the nature of both types of orthogonal SRC effects. Only asymmetric coding accounts have been proposed for the up-right/down-left advantage, and the evidence indicates that this asymmetry is a property of both verbal and spatial codes. Motoric and coding accounts, as well as a hybrid account based on end-state comfort, have been proposed for the second type of orthogonal SRC effect. In this case, the effects of responseapparatus position, hand, and hand posture conform more closely to predictions of the asymmetric coding accounts than to those of the motoric accounts. We also evaluate the mechanisms proposed by the alternative accounts in terms of related literature on the properties of spatial and verbal codes. Evidence indicates that spatial information is represented in categorical and coordinate codes, and both categorical spatial codes and verbal codes are asymmetric. Experiments on mental rotation suggest that it is unlikely that the direction of rotation is determined automatically by movement constraints, as the end-state comfort hypothesis suggests. An explanation in terms of salient features and referential coding can accommodate the range of orthogonal SRC effects.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, J. J., Boon, B., Paas, F. G. W. C., &Umiltà, C. (1998). The upright/down-left advantage for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: A dual-strategy hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 1582–1595.
Andre, A. D., Haskell, I., &Wickens, G. D. (1991). S—R compatibility effects with orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. InProceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 1546–1550). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., &Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus—response compatibility in representational space.Neuropsychologia,36, 731–735.
Banich, M. T., &Federmeier, K. D. (1999). Categorical and metric spatial processes distinguished by task demands and practice.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,11, 153–166.
Bauer, D. W., &Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus—response compatibility and the motor system.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,34A, 367–380.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.
Biel, G. A., &Carswell, C. M. (1993). Musical notation for the keyboard: An examination of stimulus—response compatibility.Applied Cognitive Psychology,7, 433–452.
Bowerman, M. (1989). Learning a semantic system: What role do cognitive predispositions play? In M. L. Rice & R. L. Schiefelbusch (Eds.),The teachability of language (pp. 133–169). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Bradshaw, J. L., Bradshaw, J. A., &Nettleton, N. C. (1990). Abduction, adduction and hand differences in simple and serial movements.Neuropsychologia,28, 917–931.
Brady, N. (1997). Spatial scale interactions and image statistics.Perception,26, 1089–1100.
Brebner, J., Shephard, M., &Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S—R compatibility.Acta Psychologica,36, 1–15.
Bridgeman, B. (1999). Separate representations of visual space for perception and visually guided behavior. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.),Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 3–13). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Bridgeman, B. (2000). Interactions between vision for perception and vision for behavior. In Y. Rossetti & A. Revonsuo (Eds.),Beyond dissociation: Interaction between dissociated implicit and explicit processing. Advances in consciousness research (pp. 17–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., &Irwin, D. E. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above?Cognition,46, 223–244.
Chambers, K. W., McBeath, M. K., Schiano, D. J., &Metz, E. G. (1999). Tops are more salient than bottoms.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 625–635.
Chase, W. G., &Clark, H. H. (1971). Semantics in the perception of verticality.British Journal of Psychology,62, 311–326.
Cho, Y. S., &Proctor, R. W. (2001). Effect of an initiating action on the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli and horizontally arrayed responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 472–484.
Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (in press). Influence of hand posture and hand position on compatibility effects for up-down stimuli mapped to left-right responses: Evidence for a hand referent hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics.
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.),Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press.
Clark, H. H., &Chase, W. G. (1974). Perceptual coding strategies in the formation and verification of descriptions.Memory & Cognition,2, 101–111.
Cooper, L. A., &Shepard, R. N. (1975). Mental transformation in the identification of left and right hands.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 48–56.
Cotton, B., Tzeng, O. J. L., &Hardyck, C. (1977). A response instruction by visual-field interaction: S—R compatibility effect or?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,10, 475–477.
Cotton, B., Tzeng, O. J. L., &Hardyck, C. (1980). Role of cerebral hemispheric processing in the visual half-field stimulus—response compatibility effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,6, 13–23.
Decety, J. (1996). The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery.Behavioural Brain Research,77, 45–52.
Dutta, A., &Proctor, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus—response compatibility effects with extended practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 801–809.
Ehrenstein, W. H., Schroeder-Heister, P., &Heister, G. (1989). Spatial S—R compatibility with orthogonal stimulus—response relationship.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 215–220.
Farrell, W. W. (1979). Coding left and right.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 42–51.
Fitts, P. M., &Deininger, R. L. (1954). S—R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology,48, 483–492.
Garnham, A. (1989). A unified theory of the meaning of some spatial relational terms.Cognition,31, 45–60.
Hayward, W. G., &Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation.Cognition,55, 39–84.
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.
Hellige, J. B., &Michimata, C. (1989). Categorization versus distance: Hemispheric differences for processing spatial information.Memory & Cognition,17, 770–776.
Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,55, 208–222.
Hommel, B. (1994). Effects of irrelevant spatial S—R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 179–184.
Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus—response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.),Theoretical issues in stimulus—response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hommel, B., &Lippa, Y. (1995). S—R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 370–374.
Hommel, B., &Prinz, W. (Eds.) (1997).Theoretical issues in stimulus—response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hummel, J. E., &Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition.Psychological Review,99, 480–517.
Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1975). The semantics of locative information in pictures and mental images.British Journal of Psychology,66, 427–441.
Klapp, S. T., Greim, D. M., Mendicino, C. M., &Koenig, R. S. (1979). Anatomic and environmental dimensions of stimulus—response compatibility: Implication for theories of memory coding.Acta Psychologica,43, 367–379.
Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Die Kodierungsabhängigkeit orthogonaler Reiz—Reaktions-Kompatibilität [Coding specificity of orthogonal S—R compatibility].Zeitshrift für Experimentelle Psychologie,46, 249–264.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility. A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994).Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kosslyn, S. M., Chabris, C. F., Marsolek, C. J., &Koenig, O. (1992). Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: Computational analyses and computer simulations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 562–577.
Kosslyn, S. M., Koenig, O., Barrett, A., Cave, C. B., Tang, J., &Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1989). Evidence for two types of spatial representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 723–735.
Kosslyn, S. M., Maljkovic, V., Hamilton, S. E., Horwitz, G., &Thompson, W. L. (1995). Two types of image generation: Evidence for left and right hemisphere processes.Neuropsychologia,33, 1485–1510.
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., Gitelman, D. R., &Alpert, N. M. (1998). Neural systems that encode categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: PET investigations.Psychobiology,26, 333–347.
Làdavas, E. (1987). Influence of handedness on spatial compatibility effects with perpendicular arrangement of stimuli and responses.Acta Psychologica,64, 13–23.
Làdavas, E. (1988). Asymmetries in processing horizontal and vertical dimensions.Memory & Cognition,16, 377–382.
Làdavas, 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.
Laeng, B. (1994). Lateralization of categorical and coordinate spatial functions: A study of unilateral stroke patients.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,6, 189–203.
Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., &d’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effect of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus—response compatibility.Acta Psychologica,79, 115–130.
Landau, B., &Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,16, 217–238.
Learmount, D., & Norris, G. (1990, October 31–November 6). Lessons to be learned.Flight International, pp. 24–26.
Lippa, Y. (1996). A referential-coding explanation for compatibility effects of physically orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 950–971.
Lippa, Y., &Adam, J. J. (2001). An explanation of orthogonal S—R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: The end-state comfort hypothesis.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 156–174.
Lu, C. H., &Proctor, R. W. (1994). Processing of an irrelevant location dimension as a function of the relevant stimulus dimension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 286–298.
Lu, C. H., &Proctor, R. W. (1998). Mapping effects for orthogonally oriented stimulus and response sets [abstract].Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (p. 165). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Lu, C. H., &Proctor, R. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S—R association strength and relative timing.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 95–136.
Michaels, C. F. (1989). S—R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 262–272.
Michaels, C. F., &Schilder, S. (1991). Stimulus—response compatibilities between vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: The effects of hand position and posture.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 342–348.
Michaels, C. F., &Stins, J. F. (1997). An ecological approach to Stimulus—response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.),Theoretical issues in stimulus—response compatibility (pp. 333–360). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Miller, R. R., &Grace, R. C. (2003). Conditioning and learning. In I. B. Wiener (Ed. in Chief ) and A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Vol. Eds.),Handbook of psychology: Vol. 4. Experimental psychology (pp. 357–397). New York: Wiley.
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., &Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 164–169.
Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes.Psychological Research,56, 144–150.
O’Leary, M. J., &Barber, P. J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 830–844.
Olson, G. M., &Laxar, K. (1973). Asymmetries in processing the terms “right” and “left”.Journal of Experimental Psychology,100, 284–290.
Olson, G. M., &Laxar, K. (1974). Processing the terms right and left: A note on left-handers.Journal of Experimental Psychology,102, 1135–1137.
Palef, S. R., &Olson, D. R. (1975). Spatial and verbal rivalry in a Stroop-like task.Canadian Journal of Psychology,29, 201–209.
Parsons, L. M. (1987a). Imagined spatial transformation of one’s body.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 172–191.
Parsons, L. M. (1987b). Imagined spatial transformations of one’s hands and feet.Cognitive Psychology,19, 178–241.
Parsons, L. M. (1994). Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 709–730.
Perner, J., &Clements, W. A. (2000). From an implicit to an explicit “theory of mind”. In Y. Rossetti & A. Revonsuo (Eds.),Beyond dissociation: Interaction between dissociated implicit and explicit processing. Advances in consciousness research (pp. 17–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pouget, A., Fisher, S. A., &Sejnowski, T. J. (1999). Egocentric spatial representation in early vision.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,5, 150–161.
Proctor, R. W., &Cho, Y. S. (2001). The up-right/down-left advantage occurs for both participant-paced and computer-paced conditions: An observation on Adam, Boon, Paas, & Umiltà (1998).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 466–471.
Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (in press). Effect of relative position and response eccentricity on orthogonal stimulus—response compatibility with joystick and keypress responses.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Proctor, R. W., &Dutta, A. (1995).Skill acquisition and human performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Proctor, R. W., &Pick, D. F. (1999). Deconstructing Marilyn: Robust effects of face contexts on stimulus—response compatibility.Memory & Cognition,27, 986–995.
Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 623–649.
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.
Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990).Stimulus—response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Proctor, R. W., Reeve, T. G., &Van Zandt, T. (1992). Salient-features coding in response selection. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.),Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 727–741). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Proctor, R. W., Reeve, T. G., Weeks, D. J., Campbell, K. C., &Dornier, L. (1997). Translating between orthogonally oriented stimulus and response arrays in four-choice reaction tasks.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,51, 85–97.
Proctor, R. W., Wang, H., &Vu, K.-P. L. (2002). Influences of different combinations of conceptual, perceptual, and structural similarity on stimulus-response compatibility.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,55A, 59–74.
Reeve, T. G., &Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete f inger responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 541–553.
Reeve, T. G., Proctor, R. W., Weeks, D. J., &Dornier, L. (1992). Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,52, 453–460.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1991).Human motor control. San Diego: Academic Press.
Rossetti, Y., &Pisella, L. (2002). Several “vision for action” systems: A guide to dissociating and integrating dorsal and ventral functions (tutorial). In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.),Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 62–119). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Roswarski, T. E., &Proctor, R. W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks.Psychological Research,59, 196–211.
Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Iani, C., &Umiltà, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 1353–1364.
Sekiyama, K. (1982). Kinesthetic aspects of mental representations in the identification of left and right hands.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 89–95.
Seymour, P. H. K. (1969). Response latencies in judgements of spatial location.British Journal of Psychology,60, 31–39.
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). Reaction toward the source of stimulation.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 174–176.
Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus— response compatibility.Psychological Research,53, 127–135.
Umiltà, C. (1991). Problems of the salient-feature coding hypothesis: Comment on Weeks and Proctor.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 83–86.
Umiltà, C., &Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility.Psychological Research,49, 81–90.
Umiltà, 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.
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.
Virzi, R. A., &Egeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference.Memory & Cognition,13, 304–319.
Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2002a).Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vu, K.-P. L., &Proctor, R. W. (2002b). The prevalence effect for two-dimensional S—R compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 815–828.
Wallace, R. J. (1971). S—R compatibility and the idea of a response code.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 354–360.
Wang, H., &Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 1201–1217.
Weeks, D. J., &Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus-response dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 355–366.
Weeks, D. J., &Proctor, R. W. (1991). Salient-features coding and orthogonal compatibility effects: A reply to Umiltà.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 87–89.
Weeks, D. J., Proctor, R. W., &Beyak, B. (1995). Stimulus—response compatibility for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: Evidence for spatial coding.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48A, 367–383.
Wexler, M., Kosslyn, S. M., &Berthoz, A. (1998). Motor processes in mental rotation.Cognition,68, 77–94.
Wightman, F. L., &Kistler, D. J. (1997). Factors affecting the relative salience of sound localization cues. In R. H. Gilkey & T. R. Anderson (Eds.),Binaural and spatial hearing in real and virtual environments (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wohlschläger, A., &Wohlschläger, A. (1998). Mental and manual rotation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 397–412.
Zhang, J., &Kornblum, S. (1997). Distributional analysis and De Jong, Liang, and Lauber’s (1994) dual-process model of the Simon effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 1543–1551.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cho, Y.S., Proctor, R.W. Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 45–73 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196468
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196468