Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 144–150 | Cite as

Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes

  • Roberto Nicoletti
  • Carlo Umiltà
Article

Summary

In the Simon task the spatial position of the stimulus, though task irrelevant, influences speed of response. We (Umiltà & Nicoletti, 1992) proposed that the orienting of attention to the imperative stimulus produces a Stroop-like interference. This paper reports the results of three experiments that provide empirical support for two predictions of this hypothesis. One is that the stimulus spatial code is formed with relation to the position to which attention is directed. The other prediction is that the Simon effect is obtained on condition that attention can orient to the stimulus.

Keywords

Empirical Support Spatial Position Simon Effect Attention Shift Simon Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Castiello, U., & Umiltà, C. (1990). Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing. Acta Psychologica, 73, 195–209.Google Scholar
  2. Eriksen, C. W., & St James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240Google Scholar
  3. Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 246–266.Google Scholar
  4. Hasbroucq, T., Guiard, Y., & Ottomani, L. (1990). Principles of response determination. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 327–330.Google Scholar
  5. Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427–439.Google Scholar
  6. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility — A model and a taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.Google Scholar
  7. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.Google Scholar
  8. McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of single-channel bottleneck in dual task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 471–484.Google Scholar
  9. Muller, H. J., & Rabbit, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315–330.Google Scholar
  10. Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G, Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 664–673.Google Scholar
  11. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 333–343.Google Scholar
  12. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.Google Scholar
  13. O'Leary, M. J., & Barber, P J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 830–844.Google Scholar
  14. Osman, A., Kornblum, S., & Meyer, D. E. (1990). Does motor programming necessitate response execution? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 183–198.Google Scholar
  15. Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991 a). Procedural learning: Locus of practice effects in speeded choice-tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 20–32.Google Scholar
  16. Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991 b). Procedural learning: Intertrial repetition effect in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33–48.Google Scholar
  17. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltà, C. (1987). Reorienting of attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.Google Scholar
  18. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.Google Scholar
  19. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–88). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  20. Simon, J. R., Sly, P. E., & Vilapakkam, S. (1981). Effect of compatibility of S-R mapping on reactions toward the stimulus source. Acta Psychologica, 47, 63–81.Google Scholar
  21. Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135Google Scholar
  22. Teichner, W. H., & Krebs, M. J., (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 81, 75–98.Google Scholar
  23. Umiltà, C. (1991). Problems of the salient-features coding hypothesis: Comment on Weeks and Proctor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 83–86.Google Scholar
  24. Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81–90.Google Scholar
  25. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1985). Attention and coding effects in S-R compatibility due to irrelevant spatial cues. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 457–471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  27. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1992). An integrated model of the Simon effect. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junca de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.), Analytic approaches to human cognition (pp. 331–349). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. Umiltà, C., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Rizzolatti, G. (1991). Differential effects of central and peripheral cues on the reorienting of spatial attention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3, 247–267.Google Scholar
  29. Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1988). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus-response compatibility effects. Neuropsychologia, 26, 435–444.Google Scholar
  30. Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1990). Attentional processes in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 261–275). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  31. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360.Google Scholar
  32. Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 163–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Nicoletti
    • 1
  • Carlo Umiltà
    • 2
  1. 1.Istituto di Fisiologia UmanaUniversità di ModenaModenaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Psicologia GeneraleUniversità di PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations