Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 69, Issue 7, pp 1242–1252 | Cite as

Preparation for horizontal or vertical dimensions affects the right-left prevalence effect

  • Akio NishimuraEmail author
  • Kazuhiko Yokosawa


When stimulus and response simultaneously vary in both horizontal and vertical dimensions, the stimulus-response compatibility effect is often larger for the horizontal dimension. We investigated the role of preparation for each dimension in this right-left prevalence. In Experiment 1, tasks based on horizontal and vertical dimensions were mixed in random order, and the relevant dimension in each trial was cued with a variable cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). A right-left prevalence effect was observed only when participants prepared for the upcoming task. Experiment 2 replicated the absence of the prevalence effect for the simultaneous presentation of cue and target using a fixed SOA of 0 msec. In Experiment 3, the right-left prevalence emerged with a 0-msec SOA when participants prepared for each dimension based on its frequency. These results suggest that participants’ internal set can be greater for the horizontal dimension, leading to the right-left prevalence effect.


Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Switch Cost Congruency Effect Simon Effect Compatibility Effect 
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.


  1. Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., &Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm.Cognitive Psychology,46, 302–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., &Umiltà, C. (2005). Preparing for perception and action (II): Automatic and effortful processes in response cueing.Visual Cognition,12, 1444–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brebner, J. (1973). S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice.Acta Psychologica,37, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Eimer, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 837–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. González, A., Milán, E. G., Pereda, A., &Hochel, M. (2005). The response-cued completion hypothesis and the nature of residual cost in regular switch.Acta Psychologica,120, 327–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hedge, A., &Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice reaction time task.Acta Psychologica,39, 427–439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hommel, B. (1996). No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 102–110.Google Scholar
  9. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 & Review,2, 174–207.Google Scholar
  11. Marble, J. G., &Proctor, R. W. (2000). Mixing location-relevant and location-irrelevant choice-reaction tasks: Influences of location mapping on the Simon effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1515–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meiran, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching.Psychological Research,63, 234–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meiran, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule-congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58A, 1023–1041.Google Scholar
  16. Meiran, N., &Chorev, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual task-switching cost.Experimental Psychology,52, 109–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 333–343.Google Scholar
  19. Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (1985). Responding with hand and foot: The right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 211–216.Google Scholar
  20. Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., Tressoldi, E. P., &Marzi, C. A. (1988). Why are left-right spatial codes easier to form than above-below ones?Perception & Psychophysics,43, 287–292.Google Scholar
  21. Proctor, R. W., Koch, I., &Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Effects of precuing horizontal and vertical dimensions on right-left prevalence.Memory & Cognition,34, 949–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990).Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  23. Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., &Nicoletti, R. (2003). Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect?Perception & Psychophysics,65, 1318–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Pelosi, A., &Umiltà, C. (2004). Right-left prevalence effect with horizontal and vertical effectors.Perception & Psychophysics,66, 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (2005). Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes.Psychological Research,69, 167–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rubichi, S., Vu, K.-P. L., Nicoletti, R., &Proctor, R. W. (2006). Spatial coding in two dimensions.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology,70, 284–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sudevan, P., &Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Vu, K.-P. L., Pellicano, A., &Proctor, R. W. (2005). No overall right-left prevalence for horizontal and vertical Simon effects.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 929–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vu, K.-P. L., &Proctor, R. W. (2001). Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 813–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vu, K.-P. L., &Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in twodimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 815–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W., &Pick, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses.Psychological Research,64, 25–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 354–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and SociologyUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations