Abstract
The influence of spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility on unimanual two-finger choice reactions was investigated. Subjects had to react as fast as possible to a flash of light that was presented in the right or left visual field. They used the index or middle fingers of their left or right hands to press the spatially same (compatible) key or the spatially different (incompatible) key. In Condition 1 the subjects’ palms faced down (pronation); in Condition 2 their palms faced up (supination) so that the spatial order of the fingers was reversed. A strong compatibility effect between right and left field of stimulation and spatially right and left finger was found under both conditions. Compatible reaction times were shorter than incompatible reaction times by 52 msec in the palm-down condition and by 61 msec in the palm-up condition. The results are interpreted as supporting the coding hypothesis of spatial compatibility.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bashore, T. R. (1981). Vocal and manual reaction time estimates of interhemispheric transmission time.Psychological Bulletin,89, 352–368.
Berlucchi, G., Crea, F., DiStefano, M., &Tassinari, G. (1977). Influence of spatial stimulus-response compatibility on reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized light stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 505–517.
Bradshaw, J. L., &Perriment, A. D. (1970). Laterality effects and choice reaction time in a unimanual two-finger task.Perception & Psychophysics,7, 185–188.
Bredner, J., Shephard, M., &Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S-R compatibility.Acta Psychologica,36, 1–15.
Efron, R. (1963). The effect of handedness on the perception of simultaneity and temporal order.Brain,86, 261–284.
Fitts, P. M., &Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology,46, 199–210.
Hedge, A., &Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time.Acta Psychologica,39, 427–439.
Heister, G. (1984). Sex differences and cognitive/motor interference with visual half-field stimulation.Neuropsychologia,22, 205–214.
Heister, G. (1986). Evidence for stimulus-response compatibility effects in a divided visual field study of cerebral lateralization. Submitted for publication.
Heister, G., &Schroeder-Heister, P. (1985). S-R compatibility effect or cerebral laterality effect? Comments on a controversy.Neuropsychologia,23, 427–430.
Heister, G., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1986). S-R compatibility and frames of reference: A discussion of Ladavas and Moscovitch’s (1984) results. Submitted for publication.
Katz, A. N. (1981). Spatial compatibility effects with hemifield presentation in a unimanual two-finger task.Canadian Journal of Psychology,35, 63–68.
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.
Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 273–296.
Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., &Umilta, 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. (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., &Ladavas, E. (1984). Compatibility due to the coding of the relative position of the effectors.Acta Psychologica,57, 133–143.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory.Neuropsychologia,9, 97–113.
Reeve, T. G., &Proctor, R. W. (1985). Nonmotoric translation processes in the preparation of discrete finger responses: A rebuttal of Miller’s (1985) analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 234–241.
Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 174–176.
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.
Umilta, 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.
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
Additional information
The research reported here was carried out at the Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie, Dortmund. The results were presented in part at the 28th Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen, Saarbriicken, March 23-27, 1986.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heister, G., Ehrenstein, W.H. & Schroeder-Heister, P. Spatial S-R compatibility effects with unimanual two-finger choice reactions for prone and supine hand positions. Perception & Psychophysics 40, 271–278 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211507
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211507