Abstract
This study presents an explanation of orthogonal stimulus—response compatibility (SRC) effects that vary with hand or response location: the end-state comfort hypothesis. It posits that responses are spatially transformed and cognitively mapped onto the stimulus dimension according to relative hand posture, thereby mediating the pattern of facilitation and interference in response selection. In the first three experiments, we investigated the eccentricity effect, finding that responses by the left hand in left hemispace are faster with up—left/down-right mapping while responses by the right hand in right hemispace are faster with up—right/down—left mapping (Michaels & Schilder, 1991, Experiment 1). The endstate comfort hypothesis correctly predicted that the eccentricity effect occurred irrespective of the relative position of the stimulus and response device in the sagittal plane (Experiments 1 and 2), and that it reversed when the stimulus—response set was reversed, regardless of the relative position of the stimulus and response device in the fronto-parallel plane (Experiments 2 and 3). Experiment 4 shows a new orthogonal SRC effect that was predicted by the end-state comfort hypothesis. Our results are inconsistent with other explanations, such as the virtual-lines hypothesis and the salient-features hypothesis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, J. J., Boon, B., Paas, F. G. W. C., &Umiltà, C. (1998). The up-right/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.
Bauer, D. W., &Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,34A, 367–380.
Beringer, J. (1998).Experimental run time system [Computer program]. Frankfurt: BeriSoft.
Bradshaw, J. L., Bradshaw, J. A., &Nettleton, N. C. (1990). Abduction, adduction and hand differences in simple and serial movements.Neuropsychologia,28, 917–931.
Brebner, J., Shephard, M., &Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S-R compatibility.Acta Psychologica,36, 1–15.
Chase, W. G., &Clark, H. H. (1971). Semantics in the perception of verticality.British Journal of Psychology,62, 311–326.
Cooper, L. A., &Shepard, R. N. (1975). Mental transformations 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.
Easton, R. D., &Sholl, M. J. (1995). Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 483–500.
Ehrenstein, W. H., Schroeder-Heister, P., &Heister, G. (1989). Spatial S—R compatibility with orthogonal stimulus—response relationship.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 215–220.
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.
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: Elsevier.
Hommel, B., &Lippa, Y. (1995). S—R compatibility due to contextdependent spatial stimulus coding.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 370–374.
Hommel, B., &Prinz, W. (1997).Theoretical issues in stimulus— response compatibility. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus—response compatibility—A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 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 & Performance,21, 855–875.
Leonard, J. A. (1959). Tactual choice reactions: I.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,11, 76–83.
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.
Michaels, C. F. (1989). S—R compatibility depend on eccentricity of responding hand.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 263–272.
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 S—R compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.),Theoretical issues in stimulus—response compatibility (pp. 333–360). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
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. (1990).Stimulus—response compatibility. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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. (1997). Set- and element-level stimulus— response compatibility effects for different manual response sets.Journal of Motor Behavior,29, 351–365.
Ridderinkhof, K. R. (1993).Interference from irrelevant information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Rosenbaum, D. A., &Jorgensen, M. J. (1992). Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control.Human Movement Science,11, 61–69.
Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Slotta, J., &Jorgensen, M. (1990). Constraints for action selection: Overhand vs. underhand grips. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.),Attention and performance XIII (pp. 321–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rossetti, Y., Meckler, C., &Prablanc, C. (1994). Is there an optimal arm posture? Deterioration of finger localization precision and comfort sensation in extreme arm-joint postures.Experimental Brain Research,99, 131–136.
Sekiyama, K. (1982). Kinesthetic aspects of mental representations in the identification of left and right hands.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 89–95.
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.
Wallace, R. J. (1971). S—R compatibility and the idea of a response code.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 354–360.
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., &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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lippa, Y., Adam, J.J. 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 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200510
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200510