Psychological Research PRPF

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 172–181 | Cite as

Effector identity and orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility in blindness to response-compatible stimuli

Original Article

Abstract

Perceiving a visual stimulus is hampered when the stimulus is compatible with simultaneously prepared or executed action (blindness effect). We explored the roles of the effector identity of the responding hand and of orthogonal compatibility (above-right/below-left correspondence) in the blindness effect. In Experiment 1, participants conducted bimanual key presses with vertically arranged responses while perceiving a brief presentation of rightward or leftward arrowheads. A blindness effect based on the effector identity did emerge, but only with the above-right/below-left key-hand arrangement. An orthogonal blindness effect was not found in Experiment 2 with a horizontal key-press action task and a vertical arrowhead perception task. We concluded that the anatomical identity of the responding hand was not integrated into the action plan with an orthogonally incompatible key-hand arrangement. The findings are discussed in terms of the generality and limits of the blindness effect, and hierarchical response coding.

References

  1. Anzola, G. P., Bertoloni, G., Buchtel, H. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1977). Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction time. Neuropsychologia, 15, 295–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brebner, J., Shephard, M., & Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S–R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 36, 1–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Caessens, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2002). Inhibition and blindness to response-compatible stimuli: A reappraisal. Acta Psychologica, 111, 45–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 45–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1673–1692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deubel, H., Schneider, W. X., & Paprotta, I. (1998). Selective dorsal and ventral processing: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Visual Cognition, 5, 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrenstein, W. H., Schroeder-Heister, P., & Heister, G. (1989). Spatial S-R compatibility with orthogonal stimulus–response relationship. Perception and Psychophysics, 45, 215–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Heister, G., Schroeder-Heister, P., & Ehrenstein, W. H. (1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus–response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 117–143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Hommel, B., & Müsseler, J. (2006). Action-feature integration blinds to feature-overlapping perceptual events: Evidence from manual and vocal actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jolicœur, P. (1999). Dual-task interference and visual encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 596–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klapp, S. T., Greim, D. M., Mendicino, C. M., & Koenig, R. S. (1979). Anatomic and environmental dimensions of stimulus–response compatibility: Implication for theories of memory coding. Acta Psychologica, 43, 367–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Koch, I., & Jolicœur, P. (2007). Orthogonal cross-task compatibility: Abstract spatial coding in dual tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 45–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility- A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2004). Actions blind to conceptually overlapping stimuli. Psychological Research, 68, 199–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lidji, P., Kolinsky, R., Lochy, A., & Morais, J. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: A piano in the head? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1189–1207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 174–207.Google Scholar
  21. Müller, D., & Schwarz, W. (2007). Is there an internal association of numbers to hands? The task set influences the nature of the SNARC effect. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1151–1161.Google Scholar
  22. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 125–129.Google Scholar
  24. Müsseler, J., Steininger, S., & Wühr, P. (2001). Can actions affect perceptual processing? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Müsseler, J., & Wühr, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 520–537). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Prinz, W. (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 7, 743–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2006). Orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1021–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oriet, C., Stevanovski, B., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). Congruency-induced blindness: A cost-benefit analysis. Acta Psychologica, 112, 243–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.). (1990). Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  32. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  33. Proctor, R. W., & Wang, H. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibility (pp. 11–37). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schubö, A., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Interactions between perception and action in a reaction task with overlapping S-R assignments. Psychological Research, 65, 145–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, J. R., & Craft, J. L. (1972). Reaction time in an oddity task: Responding to the “different” element of a three-light display. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92, 405–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Simon, J. R., Hinrichs, J. V., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Auditory S-R compatibility: Reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 97–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicœur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 65–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). Can blindness to response-compatible stimuli be observed in the absence of a response? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 431–440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicœur, P. (2006). Symbolic- and response-related contributions to blindness to compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 14, 326–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tipper, S. P., Lortie, C., & Baylis, G. C. (1992). Selective reaching: Evidence for action-centered attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 891–905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 163–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1260–1270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2002). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Visual Cognition, 9, 421–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and SociologyThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Tohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations