Perception & Psychophysics

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

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

Article

Abstract

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.

References

  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