Abstract
Reaction time is known to depend on spatial stimulus-response compatibility in both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions. However, if both dimensions are varied in the same task, horizontal but not vertical compatibility affects performance, even if subjects are instructed to attend to the vertical dimension only (Nicoletti & Umiltà, 1984). Experiment 1 compared the effect of horizontal and vertical instructions in a task with left- versus right-handed key responses placed at a top versus bottom location. A horizontal-prevalence effect was observed only with a horizontal, and not with a vertical, instruction. This suggests that subjects might not have heeded the vertical instruction in the Nicoletti and Umiltà study but instead attended to the horizontal dimension. Experiment 2 did not yield any horizontal prevalence with one-handed responses (joystick movements). This indicates that top-bottom codes become ineffective only if the responses suggest an exclusively horizontal response coding. In sum, results demonstrated multiple spatial coding of stimuli and responses under appropriate conditions and suggest that the right-left codes do not dominate the top-bottom spatial codes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arend, U., &Wandmacher, J. (1987). On the generality of logical recoding in spatial interference tasks.Acta Psychologica,65, 193–210.
Brebner, J., Shephard, M., &Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S-R compatibility.Acta Psychologica,36, 1–15.
Castiello, U., &Umiltà, C. (1987). Spatial compatibility effects in different sports.International Journal of Sport Psychology,18, 276–285.
Corballis, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1976).The psychology of left and right. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Ehrenstein, W. H. (1994). The Simon effect and visual motion.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 163–169.
Eimer, M., Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (in press). S-R compatibility and response selection.Acta Psychologica.
Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses.Journal of Motor Behavior,15, 331–342.
Hasbroucq, T., &Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 246–266.
Hedge, A., &Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time.Acta Psychologica,39, 427–439.
Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,55, 270–279.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.
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.
Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., &d’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Acta Psychologica,79, 115–130.
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.
Michaels, C. (1988). S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 231–240.
Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 333–343.
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.
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.
Nystrom, C. O., &Grant, D. A. (1955). Performance on a key-pressing task as a function of the angular correspondence between stimulus and response elements.Perceptual & Motor Skills,5, 113–125.
Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.),Relationships between perception and action (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Proctor, R. W., Van Zandt, T., Lu, C.-H., &Weeks, D. J. (1993). Stimulus-response compatibility for moving stimuli: Perception of affordances or directional coding?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 81–91.
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.
Umiltà, C., &Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility.Psychological Research,49, 81–90.
Umiltà, C., &Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.),Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 354–360.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hommel, B. No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes. Perception & Psychophysics 58, 102–110 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205480
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205480