The influence of spatial stimulus grouping on stimulus-response compatibility effects was investigated in three experiments. Stimuli were grouped as part of a superordinate unit BY (1) perceptually organizing them (Experiment 1), (2) organizing them on the basis of semantic links (Experiment 2), or (3) arbitrary links (Experiment 3). In some instances the arrangement of the stimuli resulted in a conflict between two types of spatial relationship: one between stimulus and response and the other between superordinate unit and response. The experiments indicated that it was the latter relationship that mainly determined performance in the experiments. Reaction time analyses showed that responses were fastest if they spatially corresponded to the relative location of the superordinate unit of which the stimulus was part. The results are discussed with reference to hierarchical accounts of coding stimulus information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
De JongR.LiangC.-C.LauberE. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dualprocess model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 731–750.
2.
EimerM. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21, 837–854.
3.
EimerM. (1997). The lateralized potential as an on-line measure of automatic response activation in S-R compatibility situations.Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility.HommelB.PrinzW.Amsterdam: North-Holland51–73.
4.
EimerM.HommelB.PrinzW. (1995). S-R compatibility and response selection.Acta Psychologica90, 301–313.
5.
FittsP. M.DeiningerR. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology48, 483–492.
6.
FittsP. M.SeegerC. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology46, 199–210.
7.
HeisterG.Schroeder-HeisterP.EhrensteinW. H. (1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Stimulus-response compatibility.ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G.Amsterdam: North Holland117–143.
8.
HirtleS. C.JonidesJ. (1985). Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps.Memory & Cognition13, 208–217.
9.
HirtleS. C.MascoloM. F. (1986). Effect of semantic clustering on the memory of spatial locations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition12, 182–189.
10.
HoldingC. S. (1992). Clusters and reference points in cognitive representations of the environment.Journal of Environmental Psychology12, 45–55.
11.
HoldingC. S. (1994). Further evidence for the hierarchical representation of spatial information.Journal of Environmental Psychology14, 137–147.
12.
HommelB. (1993a). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap.Psychological Research55, 280–290.
13.
HommelB. (1993b). The role of attention for the Simon effect.Psychological Research55, 208–222.
14.
HommelB. (1994a). Effects of irrelevant spatial S-R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity.Psychological Research56, 179–184.
15.
HommelB. (1994b). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation.Psychological Research56, 261–268.
16.
HommelB. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward an empirical clarification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance21, 764–775.
17.
KornblumS.HasbroucqT.OsmanA. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility-a model and taxonomy.Psychological Review97, 253–270.
18.
LádavasE. (1990). Some aspects of spatial stimulus-response compatibility in adults and normal children.Stimulus-response compatibility.ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G.Amsterdam: North-Holland145–162.
19.
LambertsK.TavernierG.d'YdewalleG. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Acta Psychologia79, 115–130.
20.
LuC.-H. (1997). Correspondence effects for irrelevant information in choice-reaction tasks: Characterizing the stimulus-response relations and the processing dynamics.Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility.HommelB.PrinzW.Amsterdam: North-Holland85–117.
21.
McNamaraT. P.HardyJ. K.HirtleS. C. (1989). Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition15, 211–227.
22.
MerrillA. A.BairdJ. C. (1987). Semantic and spatial factors in environmental memory.Memory & Cognition15, 101–108.
23.
MewaldtS. P.ConnellyC. L.SimonJ. R. (1980). Response selection in choice reaction time: Test of a buffer model.Memory & Cognition8, 606–611.
24.
NicolettiR.AnzolaG. P.LuppinoG.RizzolattiG.UmiltàC. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance8, 664–673.
25.
ProctorR. W.LuC.-H.WangH.DuttaA. (1995). Activation of response codes by relevant and irrelevant stimulus information.Acta Psychologica90, 275–286.
26.
ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G. (1990). Research on stimulus-response compatibility: Toward a comprehensive account.Stimulus-response compatibility.ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G.Amsterdam: North-Holland483–494.
27.
ProctorR. W.WangH. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility.Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility.HommelB.PrinzW.Amsterdam: North-Holland11–37.
28.
ReeveT. G.ProctorR. W.WeeksD. J.DernierL. (1992). Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks.Perception & Psychophysics52, 453–460.
29.
RoswarskiT. E.ProctorR. W. (1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks.Psychological Research59, 196–211.
30.
SimonJ. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation.journal of Experimental Psychology81, 174–176.
31.
SimonJ. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing.Stimulus-response compatibility.ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G.Amsterdam: North Holland31–86.
32.
StevensA.CoupeP. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations.Cognitive Psychology10, 422–437.
33.
StofferT. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Psychological Research53, 127–135.
34.
StofferT. H.UlmiltàC. (1997). Spatial stimulus coding and the focus of attention in S-R compatibility and the Simon effect.Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility.HommelB.PrinzW.Amsterdam: North-Holland181–208.
35.
UmiltàC.LiottiM. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility.Psychological Research49, 81–90.
36.
UmiltàC.NicolettiR. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Stimulus-response compatibility.ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G.Amsterdam: North Holland89–116.
37.
WallaceR. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code.journal of Experimental Psychology88, 354–360.
38.
WallaceR. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology93, 163–168.
39.
WeeksD. J.ProctorR. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General119, 355–366.
