Previous studies showed that the identification of a left- or right-pointing arrowhead is impaired when it appears while planning and executing a spatially compatible left or right keypress (Müsseler & Hommel, 1997a). We attribute this effect to stimulus processing and action control operating on the same feature codes so that, once a code is integrated in an action plan, it is less available for perceptual processing. In three pairs of experiments we tested the generality of this account by using stimulus–response combinations other than arrows and manual keypresses. Planning manual left–right keypressing actions impaired the identification of spatially corresponding arrows but not of words with congruent meaning. On the contrary, planning to say “left” or “right” impaired the identification of corresponding spatial words but not of congruent arrows. Thus, as the feature-integration approach suggests, stimulus identification is impaired only with overlap of perceptual or perceptually derived stimulus and response features while mere semantic congruence is insufficient.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaldoJVShimamuraAPPrinzmetalW (1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on stroop-like tasks.Perception & Psychophysics60, 427–437.
2.
BarberPO'LearyM (1997). The relevance of salience: Towards an activational account of irrelevant stimulus–response compatibility effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibility(pp. 135–172)Amsterdam:Elsevier.
3.
CaessensBLammertynJVan der GotenKDe VooghtGHommelB (1997, December). Temporal characteristics of action planningPaper presented at the 6th Wintercongres van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Psychonomie, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands.
4.
CaessensBVandierendonckA (2002). Inhibition and blindness to response-compatible stimuli: A reappraisal.Acta Psychologica111, 45–57.
5.
DehaeneS (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities.Cognition44, 1–42.
6.
DehaeneSAkhaveinR (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21, 314–326.
7.
EllisAW (1982). Spelling and writing (and reading and speaking). In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive function(pp. 113–146)London:Academic Press.
8.
ElsnerBHommelBMentschelCDrzezgaAPrinzWConradBSiebnerH (2002). Linking actions and their perceivable consequences in the human brain.Neuroimage17, 364–372.
9.
GlaserWRGlaserMO (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General118, 13–42.
10.
GordonPCMeyerDE (1984). Perceptual-motor processing of phonetic features in speech.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance10, 153–178.
11.
GreenwaldAG (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism.Psychological Review77, 73–99.
12.
HommelB (1998). Automatic stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24, 1368–1384.
13.
HommelBMüsselerJAscherslebenGPrinzW (2001a). The theory of event coding (TEC).A framework for perception and action. Behavioral & Brain Sciences24, 849–937.
14.
HommelBPrattJColzatoLGodijnR (2001b). Symbolic control of visual attention.Psychological Science12, 360–365.
15.
HommelBPrinzW (1997). (Eds.). Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibilityAmsterdam:Elsevier.
16.
HumphreysGWEvettLJ (1985). Are there independent lexical and nonlexical routes in word processing? An evaluation of the dual-route theory of reading.Behavioral and Brain Sciences8, 689–740.
17.
JamesW (1890). The principles of psychology2, New York:Dover Publications.
18.
KoppBMattlerURistF (1994). Selective attention and response competition in schizophrenic patients.Psychiatry Research53, 129–139.
19.
KornblumSHasbroucqTOsmanA (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility.A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review97, 253–270.
20.
LotzeRH (1852). Medicinische Psychologie oder die Physiologie der SeeleLeipzig, Germany:Weidmann'sche Buchhandlung.
21.
LuCH (1997). Correspondence effects for irrelevant information in choice-reaction tasks: Characterizing the stimulus–response relations and the processing dynamics. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibility(pp. 85–118)Amsterdam:Elsevier.
22.
MacKayDG (1986). Self-inhibition and the disruptive effects of internal and external feedback in skilled behavior. In H. Heuer & C. Fromm (Eds.), Generation and modulation of action patterns(pp. 174–186)Berlin:Springer.
23.
MüsselerJHommelB (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance23, 861–872.
MüsselerJWührP (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action(pp. 520–537)Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
26.
MüsselerJWührPPrinzW (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response-compatible stimuli.Visual Cognition7, 743–767.
27.
NeisserU (1967). Cognitive psychologyNew York:Appleton Century Crofts.
28.
OrietCStevanovskiBJolicoeurP (2003). Congruency-induced blindness: A cost–benefit analysis.Acta Psychologica112, 243–258.
29.
PrattJHommelB (2003). Symbolic control of visual attention: The role of working memory and attentional control settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance29, 835–845.
30.
PrinzW (1992). Why don't we perceive our brain states?.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology4, 1–20.
31.
PrinzW (1997). Perception and action planning.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology9, 129–154.
32.
RoelofsA (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production.Cognition64, 249–284.
33.
RumelhartDENormanDA (1982). Simulating a skilled typist: A study of skilled cognitive-motor performance.Cognitive Science6, 1–36.
34.
SchubotzRIFriedericiADvon Cramon (2000). Time perception and motor timing: A common cortical and subcortical basis revealed by event-related fMRI.NeuroImage11, 1–12.
35.
SchubotzRIvon CramonDY (2001). Functional organization of the lateral premotor cortex: fMRI reveals different regions activated by anticipation of object properties, location and speed.Cognitive Brain Research11, 97–112.
36.
SchubotzRIvon CramonD (2002). Predicting perceptual events activates corresponding motor schemes in lateral premotor cortex: A fMRI study.NeuroImage15, 787–796.
37.
SchubotzRIvon CramonDY (2003). Functional–anatomical concepts on human premotor cortex: Evidence from fMRI and PET studies.NeuroImage20, 120–131.
38.
SingerW (1994). The organization of sensory motor representations in the neocortex: A hypothesis based on temporal binding. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Conscious and nonconscious information processing. Attention and performance XV(pp. 77–107)Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
39.
StevanovskiBOrietCJolicoeurP (2002). Blinded by headlights.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology56, 65–74.
40.
StevanovskiBOrietCJolicœurP (2003). Can blindness to response-compatible stimuli be observed in the absence of a response?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance29, 431–440.
41.
StoetGHommelB (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25, 1625–1640.
42.
StoetGHommelB (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention & performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action(pp. 538–552)Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
43.
TraubRDJeffreysJGRWhittingtonMA (1999). Fast oscillations in cortical circuitsCambridge, MA:MIT Press.
44.
VirziRAEgethHE (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference.Memory & Cognition13, 304–319.
45.
WarrenRE (1972). Stimulus encoding and memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology94, 90–100.
46.
WascherEReinhardMWauschkuhnBVerlegerR (1999). Spatial S–R compatibility with centrally presented stimuli. An event-related asymmetry study on dimensional overlap.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience11, 214–229.
47.
WührPKnoblichGMüsselerJ (2005). An activation-binding model (ABM) for the processing of multiple visual stimuliManuscript submitted for publication.
48.
WührPMüsselerJ (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27, 1260–1270.
49.
WührPMüsselerJ (in press). When do irrelevant visual stimuli impair processing of identical targets?.Perception & Psychophysics.
