Abstract
Three experiments were undertaken to determine why right/left locational cues are superior to above/below cues in spatial compatibility. In Experiment 1, subjects responded with either the right or the left hand and the locational cues available involved both the right/left and above/below dimensions. The procedure was such as to allow the locational cues to vary independently and orthogonally. The results showed reliable compatibility effects in both dimensions, but the effect in the right/left dimension was stronger. Experiment 2, in which only above/below cues were present and the subjects responded with either hand or foot, showed a clear-cut above/below compatibility effect. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 1, except that the hand and foot were used for responding. The results showed a spatial compatibility effect for the right/left dimension and no effect for the above/below dimension. The findings are discussed with reference to the explanations put forward to account for the prevalence of the right/left dimension in spatial compatibility. A tentative explanation is proposed in terms of a propensity to allocate attention to right/left locational cues at the expense of above/below cues.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bruner, J. S. (1971). The growth and structure of skill. In K. J. Conolly (Ed.),Motor skills in infancy. New York: Academic Press.
Corballis, M. C., &Beale, I. L. (1976).The psychology of left and right. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Farrell.W. S. (1979). Coding left and right.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance,5, 42–51.
Haines, R. F., &Gilliland, K. (1973). Response time in the full visual field.Journal of Applied Psychology,58, 289–295.
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 and Performance,5, 52–67.
Maki, R. H., Maki, W. S., &Marsh, L. G. (1977). Processing locational and orientational information.Memory & Cognition,5, 602–616.
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 and Performance,8, 664–673.
Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 333–343.
Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., &Ladavas, E. (1984) Compatibility due to the coding of the relative position of the effectors.Acta Psychologica,57, 133–143.
Payne, W. H. (1967). Visual reaction times on a circle about the fovea.Science,155, 481–482.
Posner, M. L., Nissen, M. J., &Klein, R. (1976) Visual dormnance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance.Psychological Review,83, 157–171
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.
Wallace, R. J. (1971) S-R compatibility and the idea of a response codeJournal of Experimental Psychology,88, 354–360.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by funds from the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche and the Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nicoletti, R., Umilta, C. Responding with hand and foot: The right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present. Perception & Psychophysics 38, 211–216 (1985). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207147
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207147