Psychological Research

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 153–159 | Cite as

Temporal response-effect compatibility

Original Article

Abstract.

This study investigated the impact of duration-varying response effects on the generation and execution of duration-varying responses. Participants performed short or long keypresses which produced auditory effects of corresponding duration (short response ->short tone, long response ->long tone) or of noncorresponding duration (short response ->long tone, long response ->short tone). Experiment 1 revealed faster responding with a corresponding than with a noncorresponding Response-Effect (R-E) mapping; that is, a temporal R-E compatibility effect. Additionally, increasing effect duration increased response latencies, whereas it decreased keypress duration. Experiment 2 showed that the influence of temporal R-E compatibility persists even when responses are cued in advance, suggesting that at least part of it originates from response generation processes occurring later than a traditional response selection stage. These findings corroborate and complement effect-based theories of action control which assume that the selection, initiation, and execution of movements is mediated by anticipation of their sensory effects.

Notes

Acknowledgements.

I thank Peter Frensch, Michael Zießler, and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on an earlier version of the paper. Funding for this research was provided by a grant of the German Research Foundation to Joachim Hoffmann at the University of Würzburg (Grant HO 1301/6–1).

References

  1. Abrams, R.A. & Balota, D.A. (1991). Mental Chronometry: Beyond reaction time. Psychological Science, 2, 153–157.Google Scholar
  2. Ansorge, U. (2002). Spatial intention-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 109. 285–299.Google Scholar
  3. Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (1997). Delayed auditory feedback in synchronization. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29(1) 35–46.Google Scholar
  4. Aschersleben, G., Stenneken, P., Cole, J., & Prinz, W. (2002). Timing mechanisms in sensorimotor synchronization. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention and Performance XIX (pp. 227–244). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Desmurget, M. & Grafton, S. (2000). Forward modelling allows feedback control for fast reaching movements. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 423–431.Google Scholar
  6. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46 199–210.Google Scholar
  7. Glover, S. & Dixon, P. (2001). Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3): 560–572.Google Scholar
  8. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review. 77(2) 73–99.Google Scholar
  9. Grosjean, M. & Mordkoff, T. (2001). Temporal Stimulus-Response compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 27. 870–878.Google Scholar
  10. Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(1) 246–266.Google Scholar
  11. Henry, F. M., & Rogers, D. E. (1960). Increased response latency for complicated movements and a "memory drum" theory of neuromotor reaction. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 31, 448–458.Google Scholar
  12. Hoffmann, J. (1993). Vorhersage und Erkenntnis [Anticipation and Cognition]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffmann, J., Sebald, A., & Stöcker, C. (2001). Irrelevant response effects improve serial learning in Serial Reaction Time tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2) 470–482.Google Scholar
  14. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55(4) 270–279.Google Scholar
  15. Hommel, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon-Effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 764–775.Google Scholar
  16. Hommel, B. (1996a). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research 59(3) 176–186.Google Scholar
  17. Hommel, B. (1996b). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49A(3) 546–571.Google Scholar
  18. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). A Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A Framework for Percpetion and Action Planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.Google Scholar
  19. Hommel, B. & W. Prinz (1997) Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. Ivry, R. (1986). Force and timing components of the motor program. Journal of Motor Behavior. 18. 449–474.Google Scholar
  21. James, W. (1981 (orig. 1890)). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: The role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(5) 1015–1027.Google Scholar
  23. Koch, I. & Kunde, W. (2003) Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory and Cognition (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulusesponse compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2) 253–270.Google Scholar
  25. Kornblum, S. & Lee, J.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. 855–875.Google Scholar
  26. Kunde, W. (2001a). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 27, (2), 387–394.Google Scholar
  27. Kunde, W. (2001b). Exploring the hyphen in ideo-motor action. Commentary in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 24, 891–892.Google Scholar
  28. Kunde, W. & Stöcker, C. (2002). A Simon effect for Stimulus-Response Duration. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A: Human Experimental Psychology. 55 (A). 581–592.Google Scholar
  29. Kunde, W., Hoffmann, J. & Zellmann, P. (2002). The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica. 109 (2). 137–155.Google Scholar
  30. Kunde, W., Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation and execution of actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A. Human Experimental Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
  31. Mordkoff, T., Miller, J., & Roch, A-C. (1996). Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 25–41.Google Scholar
  32. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2) 129–154.Google Scholar
  33. Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L. G., & Umiltà, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62(1) 89–100.Google Scholar
  34. Sanders, A. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331–354). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  35. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.Google Scholar
  36. Spijkers, W. A., & Walter, A. (1985). Response processing stages in choice reactions. Acta Psychologica, 58, 191–204.Google Scholar
  37. Stöcker, C., Hoffmann, J. & A. Sebald. (2003). The Influence of Response-Effect Compatibility in a Serial Reaction Time Task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A. Human Experimental Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
  38. Tlauka, M. & McKenna, F.P. (1998). Mental imagery yields stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica. 94. 227–252.Google Scholar
  39. Ulrich, R., Rinkenauer, G., & Miller, J. (1998). Effects of stimulus duration and intensity on simple reaction time and response force. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 915–928Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Psychologie, Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 06099 Halle (Saale), Germany

Personalised recommendations