Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 6/2016

30-08-2015 | Original Article

Stimulus–response correspondence in go–nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?

Auteurs: Mei-Ching Lien, Logan Pedersen, Robert W. Proctor

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2016

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

In 2-choice tasks, responses are faster when stimulus location corresponds to response location, even when stimulus location is irrelevant. Dolk et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 39:1248–1260, 2013a) found this stimulus–response correspondence effect with a single response location in a go–nogo task when an irrelevant Japanese waving cat was present. They argued that salient objects trigger spatial coding of the response relative to that object. We examined this claim using both behavioral and lateralized readiness potential (LRP) measures. In Experiment 1 participants determined the pitch of a left- or right-positioned tone, whereas in Experiment 2 they determined the color of a dot within a centrally located hand pointing left, right, or straight ahead. In both experiments, participants performed a go–nogo task with the right-index finger and a 2-choice task with both index fingers, with a left-positioned Japanese waving cat present or absent. For the go–nogo task, the cat induced a correspondence effect on response times (RT) to the tones (Experiment 1) but not the visual stimuli (Experiment 2). For the 2-choice task, a correspondence effect was evident in all conditions in both experiments. Cat’s presence/absence did not significantly modulate the effect for right and left responses, although there was a trend toward increased RT and LRP for right responses in Experiment 1. The results imply that a salient, irrelevant object could provide a reference frame for response coding when attention is available to process it, as is likely in an auditory task (Experiment 1) but not a visual task (Experiment 2).
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
One reviewer raised a concern regarding the twice more “response” trials for the 2-choice task than the go–nogo trials in the data analyses. To address this concern, we conducted another analysis on RT for each experiment comparing the first half of the 2-choice task trials to the go–nogo task trials. Results were similar to the main analyses including all of the 2-choice task trials in both Experiments 1 and 2. In both experiments, the critical 3-way interaction between correspondence, task type, and object condition was not significant, Fs < 1.0. Furthermore, the correspondence effect in the 2-choice task remained unaffected by the cat condition, ts(23) ≤ 1.43, ps ≥ 0.17.
 
2
LRPs strongly depend on RTs and are determined mainly on the fast response trials (e.g., Meyer, Osman, Irwin, & Yantis, 1988). Because of the variability of RT between the auditory task in Experiment 1 and the visual task in Experiment 2, different time windows could have been used to assess LRPs. Nevertheless, we focused on the time window 100–200 ms in both experiments where the LRPs for corresponding and noncorresponding trials started to diverge. The complete summaries of LRP analyses for the consecutive 100-ms time windows from 0–400 ms after stimulus onset are reported in Appendix 2 (Experiment 1) and Appendix 4 (Experiment 2).
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.PubMed Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.PubMed
go back to reference Bokura, H., Yamaguchi, S., & Kobayashi, S. (2001). Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112, 2224–2232.CrossRefPubMed Bokura, H., Yamaguchi, S., & Kobayashi, S. (2001). Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112, 2224–2232.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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 and Performance, 20, 731–750.PubMed 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 and Performance, 20, 731–750.PubMed
go back to reference De Jong, R., Wierda, M., Mulder, G., & Mulder, L. J. M. (1988). The use of partial information in response processing: a psychophysiological investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 682–692.PubMed De Jong, R., Wierda, M., Mulder, G., & Mulder, L. J. M. (1988). The use of partial information in response processing: a psychophysiological investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 682–692.PubMed
go back to reference Dimoska, A., Johnstone, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2006). The auditory-evoked N2 and P3 components in the stop-signal task: indices of inhibition, response-conflict or error-detection? Brain and Cognition, 62, 98–112.CrossRefPubMed Dimoska, A., Johnstone, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2006). The auditory-evoked N2 and P3 components in the stop-signal task: indices of inhibition, response-conflict or error-detection? Brain and Cognition, 62, 98–112.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K. C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736.CrossRef Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K. C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736.CrossRef
go back to reference Dittrich, K., Kellen, D., & Stahl, C. (2014). Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: changes and challenges. Psychological Research, 78, 387–399.CrossRefPubMed Dittrich, K., Kellen, D., & Stahl, C. (2014). Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: changes and challenges. Psychological Research, 78, 387–399.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 911–929.CrossRef Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 911–929.CrossRef
go back to reference Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontier in Psychology, 2, 84. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontier in Psychology, 2, 84.
go back to reference Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration. Frontier in Psychology, 5, 974. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration. Frontier in Psychology, 5, 974.
go back to reference Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013a). The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260.PubMed Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013a). The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260.PubMed
go back to reference Dolk, T., Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Fiehler, K. (2013b). Visual experience determines the use of external reference frames in joint action control. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dolk, T., Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Fiehler, K. (2013b). Visual experience determines the use of external reference frames in joint action control. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Donkers, F. C. L., & Van Boxtel, G. J. M. (2004). The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 56, 165–176.CrossRefPubMed Donkers, F. C. L., & Van Boxtel, G. J. M. (2004). The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 56, 165–176.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2007). A model of the go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 389–413.CrossRef Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2007). A model of the go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 389–413.CrossRef
go back to reference Guagnano, D., Rusconia, E., & Umiltá, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355.CrossRefPubMed Guagnano, D., Rusconia, E., & Umiltá, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Holländer, A., Jung, C., & Prinz, W. (2011). Covert motor activity on NoGo trials in a task sharing paradigm: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 345–356.CrossRefPubMed Holländer, A., Jung, C., & Prinz, W. (2011). Covert motor activity on NoGo trials in a task sharing paradigm: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 345–356.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279.CrossRef Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279.CrossRef
go back to reference Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571.CrossRef Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571.CrossRef
go back to reference Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 494–500.CrossRef Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 494–500.CrossRef
go back to reference Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations. Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.CrossRefPubMed Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations. Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.CrossRefPubMed Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 99–104.CrossRef Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 99–104.CrossRef
go back to reference Kopp, B., Mattler, U., Goertz, R., & Rist, F. (1996). N2, P3 and the lateralised readiness potential in a nogo task involving selective response priming. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 99, 19–27.CrossRefPubMed Kopp, B., Mattler, U., Goertz, R., & Rist, F. (1996). N2, P3 and the lateralised readiness potential in a nogo task involving selective response priming. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 99, 19–27.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMed Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & D’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus–response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115–130.CrossRefPubMed Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & D’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus–response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115–130.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus–response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212–238.CrossRef Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus–response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212–238.CrossRef
go back to reference Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S.-L., & Yu, Y.-T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: evidence from lateralized readiness potential. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 133–141.CrossRef Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S.-L., & Yu, Y.-T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: evidence from lateralized readiness potential. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 133–141.CrossRef
go back to reference Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.CrossRef Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.CrossRef
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference Masaki, H., Wild-Wall, N., Sanglas, J., & Sommer, W. (2004). The functional locus of the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 41, 220–230.CrossRefPubMed Masaki, H., Wild-Wall, N., Sanglas, J., & Sommer, W. (2004). The functional locus of the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 41, 220–230.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.CrossRefPubMed Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Meyer, O. W., Osman, A. M., Irwin, O. E., & Yantis, S. (1988). Modern mental chronometry. Biological Psychology, 26, 3–67.CrossRefPubMed Meyer, O. W., Osman, A. M., Irwin, O. E., & Yantis, S. (1988). Modern mental chronometry. Biological Psychology, 26, 3–67.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Miller, J., Coles, M. G. H., & Chakraborty, S. (1996). Dissociation between behavioral and psychophysiological measures of response preparation. Acta Psychologica, 94, 189–208.CrossRefPubMed Miller, J., Coles, M. G. H., & Chakraborty, S. (1996). Dissociation between behavioral and psychophysiological measures of response preparation. Acta Psychologica, 94, 189–208.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Miller, J., & Hackley, S. A. (1992). Electrophysiological evidence for temporal overlap among contingent mental processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 195–209.CrossRef Miller, J., & Hackley, S. A. (1992). Electrophysiological evidence for temporal overlap among contingent mental processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 195–209.CrossRef
go back to reference Neumann, O., van der Heijden, A. H. C., & Allport, D. A. (1986). Visual selective attention: introductory remarks. Psychological Research, 48, 185–188.CrossRefPubMed Neumann, O., van der Heijden, A. H. C., & Allport, D. A. (1986). Visual selective attention: introductory remarks. Psychological Research, 48, 185–188.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Nicoletti, R., & Umiltá, C. (1989a). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.PubMed Nicoletti, R., & Umiltá, C. (1989a). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.PubMed
go back to reference Nicoletti, R., & Umiltá, C. (1989b). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144–150.CrossRef Nicoletti, R., & Umiltá, C. (1989b). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144–150.CrossRef
go back to reference Praamstra, P. (2007). Do’s and don’ts with lateralized event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 497–502.PubMed Praamstra, P. (2007). Do’s and don’ts with lateralized event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 497–502.PubMed
go back to reference Proctor, R. W., & Shao, C. (2010). Does the contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence to the auditory Simon effect increase with practice? Experimental Brain Research, 204, 131–137.CrossRefPubMed Proctor, R. W., & Shao, C. (2010). Does the contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence to the auditory Simon effect increase with practice? Experimental Brain Research, 204, 131–137.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
go back to reference Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1988). Determinants of two-choice reaction-time patterns for same-hand and different-hand finger pairings. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20, 317–340.CrossRefPubMed Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1988). Determinants of two-choice reaction-time patterns for same-hand and different-hand finger pairings. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20, 317–340.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Roberts, L. E., Rau, H., Lutzenberger, W., & Birbaumer, N. (1994). Mapping P300 waves onto inhibition: Go/No-Go discrimination. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 92, 44–55.CrossRefPubMed Roberts, L. E., Rau, H., Lutzenberger, W., & Birbaumer, N. (1994). Mapping P300 waves onto inhibition: Go/No-Go discrimination. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 92, 44–55.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: what, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 353–367.CrossRefPubMed Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: what, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 353–367.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.CrossRefPubMed Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How to share a task: co-representing stimulus–response mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.PubMed Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How to share a task: co-representing stimulus–response mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.PubMed
go back to reference Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: an ERP study of action planning and control in coacting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 859–870.CrossRefPubMed Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: an ERP study of action planning and control in coacting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 859–870.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Shiu, L.-P., & Kornblum, S. (1999). Stimulus–response compatibility effects in go–no-go tasks: a dimensional overlap account. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 1613–1623.CrossRefPubMed Shiu, L.-P., & Kornblum, S. (1999). Stimulus–response compatibility effects in go–no-go tasks: a dimensional overlap account. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 1613–1623.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Smith, J. L., Johnstone, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2007). Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: the N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 343–355.CrossRefPubMed Smith, J. L., Johnstone, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2007). Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: the N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 343–355.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Smith, J. L., Smith, E. A., Provost, A. L., & Healthcote, A. (2010). Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/Nogo task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75, 217–218.CrossRefPubMed Smith, J. L., Smith, E. A., Provost, A. L., & Healthcote, A. (2010). Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/Nogo task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75, 217–218.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional zooming and spatial S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135.CrossRefPubMed Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional zooming and spatial S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Tsai, C.-C., Kuo, W.-J., Jing, J.-T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J.-L. (2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353–362.CrossRefPubMed Tsai, C.-C., Kuo, W.-J., Jing, J.-T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J.-L. (2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353–362.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Ulrich, R., Mattes, S., & Miller, J. O. (1999). Doners’s assumption of pure insertion: an evaluation on the basis of response dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 102, 43–75.CrossRef Ulrich, R., Mattes, S., & Miller, J. O. (1999). Doners’s assumption of pure insertion: an evaluation on the basis of response dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 102, 43–75.CrossRef
go back to reference Valle-Inclán, F. (1996). The locus of interference in the Simon effect: an ERP study. Biological Psycholology, 43, 147–162.CrossRef Valle-Inclán, F. (1996). The locus of interference in the Simon effect: an ERP study. Biological Psycholology, 43, 147–162.CrossRef
go back to reference Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751.PubMed Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751.PubMed
go back to reference Xiong, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2015). Referential coding of steering-wheel button presses in a simulated driving cockpit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (in press). Xiong, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2015). Referential coding of steering-wheel button presses in a simulated driving cockpit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (in press).
go back to reference Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). The Simon task with multi-component responses: two loci of response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 75, 214–226.CrossRefPubMed Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). The Simon task with multi-component responses: two loci of response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 75, 214–226.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119, 272–303.CrossRefPubMed Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119, 272–303.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Stimulus–response correspondence in go–nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?
Auteurs
Mei-Ching Lien
Logan Pedersen
Robert W. Proctor
Publicatiedatum
30-08-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0699-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2016

Psychological Research 6/2016 Naar de uitgave