Previous research has shown that responses to words are faster and more accurate in the go/no-go version of the lexical decision task (LDT) than in the choice-response version. This finding has been attributed to reduced response-selection demands in the go/no-go task. Here, we test an alternative account assuming similar response-selection demands in the two tasks, but an additional impact of polarity correspondence between stimuli and responses in the go/no-go task. Positive and negative polarities have been described as a frequent characteristic of binary stimulus and response dimensions. Only for the go/no-go version of the LDT, an apparent polarity difference between go and no-go responses exists, with go responses having the same polarity as words and no-go responses the same polarity as nonwords. Thus, compared with the choice-response LDT, in the go/no-go LDT, go responses to words should be facilitated by polarity correspondence, and go responses to nonwords should be inhibited by polarity noncorrespondence. In this study, each participant performed a go/no-go LDT and a choice-response LDT. Responses to words were faster and more accurate than responses to nonwords, and—consistent with the alternative account—this difference was larger in the go/no-go LDT than in the choice-response LDT. An analysis of performance by means of sequential-sampling models that take into account a decaying influence of irrelevant stimulus features supported the effect of polarity correspondence in the go/no-go LDT. This analysis suggested an effect in the choice-response LDT as well, though of a smaller size and a faster decay.
AllenP. A.MaddenD. J.WeberT. A.GrothK. E. (1993). Influence of age and processing stage on visual word recognition. Psychology and Aging, 8(2), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.274
2.
BradleyM. M.LangP. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
3.
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 Performance, 20(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731
DondersF. C. (1969). On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychologica, 30, 412–431.
6.
DufauS.GraingerJ.ZieglerJ. C. (2012). How to say “no” to a nonword: A leaky competing accumulator model of lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1117–1128.
7.
EriksenC. W. (1995). The flanker task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. In BundesenC.ShibuyaH. (Eds.), Visual selective attention (pp. 101–118). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
9.
FittsP. M.DeiningerR. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(6), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054967
10.
FittsP. M.SeegerC. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062827
HeuerH. (1990). Rapid responses with the left or right hand: Response-response compatibility effects due to intermanual interactions. In ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G. (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 311–342). North-Holland.
HommelB. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of Stimulus-Response compatibility. In HommelB.PrinzW. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in Stimulus-Response compatibility (pp. 281–320). Elsevier.
17.
HommelB.ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.
18.
HübnerR.PelzerT. (2020). Improving parameter recovery for conflict drift-diffusion models. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 1848–1866. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01366-8
19.
HübnerR.SteinhauserM.LehleC. (2010). A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychological Review, 117(3), 759–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019471
KleinsorgeT. (1999). Die Kodierungsabhängigkeit orthogonaler Reiz-Reaktions-Kompatibilität [Coding specificity of orthogonal S–R compatibility]. Zeitschrift Für Experimentelle Psychologie, 46(4), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1026//0949-3964.46.4.249
22.
KornblumS. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56(3), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419699
23.
KornblumS.HasbroucqT.OsmanA. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility–A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253
24.
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 Performance, 21(4), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.855
25.
LeeH.LeeY.TaeJ.KwonY. (2019). Advantage of the go/no-go task over the yes/no lexical decision task: ERP indexes of parameters in the diffusion model. PLOS ONE, 14(7), Article e0218451. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218451
26.
MiletićS.TurnerB. M.ForstmannB. U.van MaanenL. (2017). Parameter recovery for the leaky competing accumulator model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 76, 25–50.
27.
Moret-TatayC.PereaM. (2011). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task with developing readers?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(1), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.04.005
28.
Navarro-PardoE.Navarro-PradosA. B.GamermannD.Moret-TatayC. (2013). Differences between young and old university students on a lexical decision task: Evidence through an ex-Gaussian approach. Journal of General Psychology, 140, 251–268.
29.
PariseC. V. (2016). Crossmodal correspondences: Standing issues and experimental guidelines. Multisensory Research, 29, 7–28.
30.
PereaM.DevisE.MarcetA.GomezP. (2016). Are go/no-go tasks preferable to two-choice tasks in response time experiments with older adults?Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 147–158.
31.
PereaM.RosaE.GómezC. (2002). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task?Memory & Cognition, 30(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195263
32.
PittM. A.MyungI. J. (2002). When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 421–425.
33.
PoultonE. C.FreemanP. R. (1966). Unwanted asymmetrical transfer effects with balanced experimental designs. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 18.
34.
ProctorR. W.ChoY. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416
35.
ProctorR. W.VuK. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles. Data, theory, and application. CRC Press.
36.
ProctorR. W.XiongA. (2015). Polarity correspondence as a general compatibility principle. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 446–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415607305
37.
RatcliffR.GomezP.McKoonG. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.159
38.
RidderinkhofK. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In HommelB.PrinzW. (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 494–519). Oxford University Press.
39.
ScarboroughD. L.CorteseC.ScarboroughH. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.1.1
40.
ShafferL. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284–288.
41.
SimonJ. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G. (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). North-Holland.
42.
SmidH. G. O. M.FiedlerR.HeinzeH.-J. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the insertion of overt response choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(3), 1053–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.3.1053
StürmerB.LeutholdH.SoetensE.SchröterH.SommerW. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.
45.
UlrichR.SchröterH.LeutholdH.BirngruberT. (2015). Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 148–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.02.005
46.
UsherM.McClellandJ. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108(3), 550–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.550
47.
Van den WildenbergW. P.WylieS. A.ForstmannB. U.BurleB.HasbroucqT.RidderinkhofK. R. (2010). To head or to heed? Beyond the surface of selective action inhibition: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 222. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00222
48.
VuK. P. L.ProctorR. W. (2004). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 57, 539–556.
49.
WagenmakersE. J.BrownS. (2007). On the linear relation between the mean and the standard deviation of a response time distribution. Psychological Review, 114, 830–841.
50.
WalshV. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483–488.
51.
WeeksD. J.ProctorR. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(4), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.119.4.355
52.
WhiteC. N.RatcliffR.StarnsJ. J. (2011). Diffusion models of the flanker task: Discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cognitive Psychology, 63(4), 210–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.08.001
53.
WhiteC. N.ServantM.LoganG. D. (2017). Testing the validity of conflict drift-diffusion models for use in estimating cognitive processes: A parameter-recovery study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 286–301.
54.
WiegandK.WascherE. (2005). Dynamic aspects of stimulus-response correspondence: Evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 453–464.
55.
WührP.HeuerH. (2017). Response preparation, response conflict, and the effects of irrelevant flanker stimuli. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0208-3
56.
WührP.HeuerH. (2018). The impact of anatomical and spatial distance between responses on response conflict. Memory & Cognition, 46(6), 994–1009. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0817-5
57.
WührP.HeuerH. (2020). To respond or not to respond? A model-based comparison between the processing of go, nogo, and neutral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46, 525–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000731
58.
WundtW. (1874). Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie [Foundations of physiological psychology]. Engelman.
59.
ZorziM.UmiltàC. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419634
