Effector identity and orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility in blindness to response-compatible stimuli
- 113 Downloads
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.
KeywordsResponse Position Action Task Perceptual Task Incompatible Condition Blindness Effect
This study was supported by a grant from the Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists to AN, and by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science awarded to KY.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 125–129.Google Scholar
- 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
- Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.). (1990). Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- 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