When compatible and incompatible mappings of a location-relevant task are mixed, or a location-relevant task is mixed with a task for which stimulus location is irrelevant, the benefit of the compatible mapping is eliminated for physical locations and enhanced for location words. Two experiments examined the influence of presenting the location information for the mixed conditions in different stimulus modes (physical location or word). Experiment 1 showed that the effects of mixing location-relevant and location-irrelevant tasks on the spatial compatibility and Simon effects are reduced when the location information is presented in different modes for the two tasks. Experiment 2 showed, in contrast, that the mode distinction had little influence on the effects of mixed compatible and incompatible mappings for location-relevant tasks: The compatibility effect was eliminated for physical locations and enhanced for words, as when there is no mode distinction. Thus, when location is relevant for one task and colour for the other, the task-defined associations of locations to responses are mode specific, but when location is relevant for both tasks, the associations are mode independent.
De HouwerJ. (2004). Spatial Simon effects with nonspatial responses.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11, 49–53.
2.
De HouwerJ.BeckersT.VandorpeS.CustersR. (2005). Further evidence for the role of mode-independent short-term associations in spatial Simon effects.Perception & Psychophysics67, 659–666.
3.
De JongR. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty.Acta Psychologica88, 187–207.
4.
De JongR.LiangC.-C.LauberE. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 731–750.
5.
FiasW.FischerM. H. (2005). Spatial representation of numbers.CampbellJ. I. D.Handbook of mathematical cognitionNew York: Psychology Press43–54.
HommelB.ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task.Psychological Research68, 1–17.
8.
KornblumS.LeeJ.-W. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21, 855–875.
9.
LuC.-H.ProctorR. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review2, 174–207.
10.
LuC.-H.ProctorR. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S–R association strength and relative timing.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54A, 95–136.
11.
MarbleJ. G.ProctorR. W. (2000). Mixing location-relevant and location-irrelevant trials in choice-reaction tasks: Influences of location mapping on the Simon effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance26, 1515–1533.
12.
NotebaertW.De MoorW.GeversW.HartsuikerR. J. (2007). New visuo-spatial associations by training verbo-spatial mappings in the first language.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review14, 1183–1188.
13.
NotebaertW.GeversW.VergutsT.FiasW. (2006). Shared spatial representations for numbers and space: The reversal of the SNARC and the Simon effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance32, 1197–1207.
14.
ProctorR. W.MarbleJ. G.VuK.-P. L. (2000). Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: Effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect.Psychological Research64, 11–24.
15.
ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2002a). Eliminating, magnifying, and reversing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant and irrelevant trials.PrinzW.HommelB.Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performanceOxford, UK: Oxford University PressXIX, 443–473.
16.
ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2002b). Mixing location-irrelevant and location-relevant trials: Influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects.Memory & Cognition30, 281–293.
17.
ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L.MarbleJ. G. (2003). Spatial compatibility effects are eliminated when intermixed location-irrelevant trials produce the same spatial codes.Visual Cognition10, 15–50.
18.
ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory and applicationBoca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
19.
ProctorR. W.WangH. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility.HommelB.PrinzW.Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibilityAmsterdam: North-Holland11–37.
20.
ShafferL. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S–R mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology70, 284–288.
21.
SimonJ. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing.ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G.Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspectiveAmsterdam: North-Holland31–86.
22.
StürmerB.LeutholdH.SoetensE.SchroterH.SommerW. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance28, 1345–1363.
23.
VirziR. A.EgethH. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference.Memory & Cognition13, 304–319.
24.
VuK.-P. L.ProctorR. W. (2004). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology57A, 539–556.
25.
VuK.-P. L.ProctorR. W. (2007). Age differences in response selection for pure and mixed stimulus–response mappings and tasks Manuscript submitted for publication.
26.
YamaguchiM.ProctorR. W. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied12, 207–222.
27.
ZorziM.UmiltàC. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung58, 193–205.
