Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 174–207 | Cite as

The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects

  • Chen-hui Lu
  • Robert W. Proctor


The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of irrelevant location information on performance of visual choice-reaction tasks. We review empirical findings and theoretical explanations from two domains, those of the Simon effect and the spatial Stroop effect, in which stimulus location has been shown to affect reaction time when irrelevant to the task. We then integrate the findings and explanations from the two domains to clarify how and why stimulus location influences performance even when it is uninformative to the correct response. Factors that influence the processing of irrelevant location information include response modality, relative timing with respect to the relevant information, spatial coding, and allocation of attention. The most promising accounts are offered by models in which response selection is a function of (1) strength of association of the irrelevant stimulus information with the response and (2) temporal overlap of the resulting response activation with that produced by the relevant stimulus information.


  1. Arend, U., &MWandmacher, J. (1987). On the generality of logical recoding in spatial interference tasks.Acta Psychologica,65, 193–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber, P. J., O’Leary, M. J., &MSimon, J. R. (1994). Defining stimulus congruity. A rejoinder to Guiard, Hasbroucq, and Possamai (1994).Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bashinski, H. S., &Bacharach, V. R. (1980). Enhancement of perceptual sensitivity as the result of selectively attending to spatial locations.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brebner, J. (1979). The compatibility of spatial and non-spatial relationships.Acta Psychologica,43, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, H. H., &MBrownell, H. H. (1975). Judging up and down.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., &MMcClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect.Psychological Review,97, 332–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D., &MMcClelland, J. L. (1992). A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity.American Journal of Psychology,105, 239–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craft, J. L., &Simon, J. R. (1970). Processing symbolic information from a visual display: Interference from an irrelevant directional cue.Journal of Experimental Psychology,83, 415–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalrymple-Alford, E. C. (1968). Interlingual interference in a colornaming task.Psychonomic Science,10, 215–216.Google Scholar
  10. Dalrymple-Alford, E. C. (1972). Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task.Perception & Psychophysics,11, 274–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalrymple-Alford, E. C., &MAzkoul, J. (1972). The locus of interference in the Stroop and related tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,11, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., &Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 731–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunbar, K. N., &MMacLeod, C. M. (1984). A horse race of a different color: Stroop interference patterns with transformed words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 622–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dyer, F. N. (1971). The duration of word meaning responses: Stroop interference for different preexposures of the word.Psychonomic Science,25, 229–231.Google Scholar
  15. Dyer, F. N. (1972). Latencies for movement naming with congruent and incongruent word stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,11, 377–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyer, F. N. (1973). The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes.Memory & Cognition,1, 106–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dyer, F. N. (1974). Stroop interference with long preexposures of the word: Comparison of pure and mixed preexposure sequences.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,3, 8–10.Google Scholar
  18. Eriksen, C. W., &MHoffman, J. E. (1972). Some characteristics of selective attention in visual perception determined by vocal reaction time.Perception & Psychophysics,11, 169–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flowers, J. H., &MStoup, C. M. (1977). Selective attention between words, shapes and colors in speeded classification and vocalization tasks.Memory & Cognition,5, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox, L. A., Shor, R. E., &Steinman, R. J. (1971). Semantic gradients and interference in naming color, spatial direction, and numerosity.Journal of Experimental Psychology,91, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glaser, M. O., &MDolt, M. O. (1977). A functional model to localize the conflict underlying the Stroop phenomenon.Psychological Research/ Psychologische Forschung,39, 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaser, M. O., &MGlaser, W. R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,8, 875–894.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glaser, W. R., &MGlaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goolkasian, P. (1989). Target and distractor processing at several retinal locations.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,27, 231–233.Google Scholar
  25. Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility.Journal of Experimental Psychology,94, 52–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grice, G. R., Canham, L., &Boroughs, J. M. (1984). Combination rule for redundant information in reaction time tasks with divided attention.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grice, G. R., Canham, L., &Gwynne, J. W. (1984). Absence of a redundant-signals effect in a reaction time task with divided attention.Perception & Psychophysics,36, 565–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses.Journal of Motor Behavior,15, 331–342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Guiard, Y., Hasbroucq, T., &MPossamai, C.-A. (1994). Stimulus congruity, irrelevant spatial SR correspondence, and display-control arrangement correspondence.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 210–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harvey, N. (1984). The Stroop effect: Failure to focus attention or failure to maintain focusing?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36, 89–115.Google Scholar
  31. Hasbroucq, T., &MGuiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 246–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hasbroucq, T., Guiard, Y., &MKornblum, S. (1989). The additivity of stimulus-response compatibility with the effects of sensory and motor factors in a tactile choice reaction time task.Acta Psychologica,72, 139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hasbroucq, T., &MPossamai, C.-A. (1994). What can a precue enhance? An analysis of the experiments of Proctor, Lu, and Van Zandt (1992).Acta Psychologica,85, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hedge, A., &MMarsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time.Acta Psychologica,39, 427–439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hock, H. S., &MEgeth, H. (1970). Verbal interference with encoding in a perceptual classification task.Journal of Experimental Psychology,83, 299–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoffman, J. E., &MNelson, B. (1981). Spatial selectivity in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,30, 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hommel, B. (1993a, November).The effects of spatial cues on visual attention, response selection, and spatial compatibility. Poster presented at the 34th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  38. Hommel, B. (1993b). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,55, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hommel, B. (1993c). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,55, 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hommel, B. (1993d). The role of attention for the Simon effect.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,55, 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hommel, B. (1994a). Effects of irrelevant spatial S-R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hommel, B. (1994b). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hommel, B. (in press). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward an empirical clarification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.Google Scholar
  44. James, W. (1950).The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1890)Google Scholar
  45. Jonides, J., &Mack, R. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit.Psychological Bulletin,96, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keele, S. (1972). Attention demands of memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology,93, 245–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming.American Journal of Psychology,77, 576–588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. In G. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.),Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 743–777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  49. Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simonlike stimuli.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &MOsman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., &d’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effect of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Acta Psychologica,79, 115–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data.Cognitive Psychology,12, 523–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Logan, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 1015–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Logan, G. D., &MZbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task.Memory & Cognition,7, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Logan, G. D., &MZbrodoff, N. J. (1982). Constraints on strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 502–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., &Fostey, A. R. W. (1983). Costs and benefits of strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task.Memory & Cognition,11, 485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lu, C.-H., &Proctor, R. W. (1994). Processing of an irrelevant location dimension as a function of the relevant stimulus dimension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lu, C.-H., &Proctor, R. W. (1995).Effects of S-R association strength and relative timing on the processing of relevant and irrelevant information. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  59. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin,109 (2), 163–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MacLeod, C. M., &Dunbar, K. (1988). Training and Stroop-like interference: Evidence for a continuum of automaticity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McCann, R. S., &MJohnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McClain, L. (1983). Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 266–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Melara, R. D., &MMounts, J. R. W. (1993). Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice.Memory & Cognition,21, 627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mewaldt, S. P., Connelly, C. L., &MSimon, J. R. (1980). Response selection in choice reaction time: Test of a buffer model.Memory & Cognition,8, 606–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mewhort, D. J. K., Braun, J. G., &MHeathcote, A. (1992). Response time distributions and the Stroop task: A test of the Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland (1990) model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 872–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Morton, J., &MChambers, S. M. (1973). Selective attention to words and colours.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,25, 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., &MUmiltà, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 164–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nicoletti, R., &MUmiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nissen, M. J. (1985). Accessing features and objects: Is location special? In M. I. Posner & D. S. Marin (Eds.),Attention and performance XI (pp. 205–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  71. O’Leary, M. J., &MBarber, P. J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 830–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. O’Leary, M. J., &MBarber, P. J. (1994). Stimulus congruence and the Simon effect.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. O’Leary, M. J., Barber, P. J., &MSimon, J. R. (1994). Does stimulus correspondence account for the Simon effect? Comments on Hasbroucq and Guiard (1991).Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Palef, S. R. (1978). Judging pictorial and linguistic aspects of space.Memory & Cognition,6, 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Palef, S. R., &MOlson, D. R. (1975). Spatial and verbal rivalry in a Stroop-like task.Canadian Journal of Psychology,29, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Phaf, R. H., Van der Heijden, A. H. C., &Hudson, P. T. W. (1990). SLAM: A connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks.Cognitive Psychology,22, 273–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Posner, M. I. (1978).chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. Posner, M. I., &Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  79. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., &MDavidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Prinz, W., Aschersleben, G., Hommel, B., &Vogt, S. (1993). Handlugen als Ereignese. In D. Dörner & E. van der Meer (Eds.),Gedächtnis. Trends, probleme, perspektiven. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  81. Proctor, R. W. (1978). Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task.Perception & Psychophysics,23, 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Proctor, R. W. (1981). A unified theory for matching task phenomena.Psychological Review,88, 291–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Proctor, R. W., &MDutta, A. (1993). Do the same stimulus-response relations influence choice reactions initially and after practice?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 922–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Proctor, R. W., &MLu, C.-H. (1994). Referential coding and attention shifting accounts of the Simon effect.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Proctor, R. W., Lu, C.-H., &Van Zandt, T. (1992). Enhancement of the Simon effect by response precuing.Acta Psychologica,74, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Proctor, R. W.,Lu, C.-H.,Wang, H., &Dutta, A. (in press). Activation of response codes to varying degrees by relevant and irrelevant information.Acta Psychologica.Google Scholar
  87. Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990).Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  88. Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L. G., &MUmiltà, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects?Acta Psychologica,62, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., &McClelland, J. L. (1986). A general framework for parallel distributed processing. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & PDP Research Group (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 318–362). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. Schneider, W., &Fisk, A. D. (1982). Degree of consistent training: Improvements in search performance and automatic process development.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Seymour, P. H. (1973). Stroop interference in naming and verifying spatial locations.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Shiffrin, R. M., &MSchneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.Psychological Review,84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shimamura, A. P. (1987). Word comprehension and naming: An analysis of English and Japanese orthographies.American Journal of Psychology,100, 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Shor, R. E. (1970). The processing of conceptual information on spatial directions from pictorial and linguistic symbols.Acta Psychologica,32, 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shor, R. E., Hatch, R. P., Hudson, L. J., Landrigan, D. T., &MShaffer, H. J. (1972). Effect of practice on a Stroop-like spatial directions task.Journal of Experimental Psychology,94, 168–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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
  97. Simon, J. R., Acosta, E., Jr.,Mewaldt, S. P., &Speidel, C. R. (1976). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on choice reaction time: Duration of the phenomenon and its relation to stages of processing.Perception & Psychophysics,19, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Simon, J. R., &Berbaum, K. (1990). Effect of conflicting cues: The “Stroop effect” vs. the “Simon effect.”Acta Psychologica,73, 159–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Simon, J. R., &MCraft, 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
  100. Simon, J. R., Craft, J. L., &MWebster, J. B. (1973). Reactions toward the stimulus source: Analysis of correct responses and errors over a five-day period.Journal of Experimental Psychology,101, 175–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Simon, J. R., Hinrichs, J. V., &MCraft, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Simon, J. R., &MRudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing.Journal of Applied Psychology,51, 300–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Simon, J. R., Sly, P. E., &MVilapakkam, S. (1981). Effect of compatibility of S-R mapping on reaction toward the stimulus source.Acta Psychologica,47, 63–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Simon, J. R., &MSmall, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue.Journal of Applied Psychology,53, 433–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Simon, J. R., Small, A. M., Jr.,Ziglar, R. A., &MCraft, J. L. (1970). Response interference in an information processing task: Sensory versus perceptual factors.Journal of Experimental Psychology,85, 311–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Smith, M. C. (1967). Theories of the psychological refractory period.Psychological Bulletin,67, 202–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Spijkers, W. A. C. (1990). Response selection and motor programming: Effects of compatibility and average velocity. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.),Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 297–309). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  108. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method.Acta Psychologica,30, 276–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Stoffels, E. J. (1995).On stage robustness and response selection routes: Further evidence. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  110. Stoffels, E. J., van der Molen, M. W., &MKeuss, P. J. G. (1989). An additive factors analysis of the effects of location cues associated with auditory stimuli on stages of information processing.Acta Psychologica,70, 161–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Stoffer, T. (1991). Attentional focusing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,53, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stoffer, T., &MYakin, A. R. (1994). The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Stroop, J. R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 15–23. (Original work published 1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Sugg, M. J., &McDonald, J. E. (1994). Time course of inhibition in color-response and word-response versions of the Stroop task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 647–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Treisman, A. M., &MGelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tsal, Y., &MLavie, N. (1993). Location dominance in attending to color and shape.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Umiltà, C. (1994). The Simon effect: Introductory remarks.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 127–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Umiltà, C., &MLiotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility.Psychological Research,49, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Umiltà, C., &Nicoletti, R. (1985). Attention and coding effects in S-R compatibility due to irrelevant spatial cues. In M. I. Posner & O. S.M. Marin (Eds.),Attention and performance XI (pp. 456–471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  120. 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
  121. Umiltà, C., &Nicoletti, R. (1992). An integrated model of the Simon effect. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junca de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.),Analytic approach to human cognition (pp. 331–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  122. Van Duren, L., &Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs.Acta Psychologica,69, 83–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Van Zandt, T., &Townsend, J. T. (1993). Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: An evaluative review.Perception & Psychophysics,53, 563–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., &Heilman, K. M. (1988). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus-response compatibility effects.Neuropsychologia,26, 435–444.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Virzi, R. A., &MEgeth, H. E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference.Memory & Cognition,13, 304–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 354–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology,93, 163–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Warren, R. E. (1972). Stimulus encoding and memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,94, 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Weeks, D. J.,Chua, R., &Hamblin, K. (in press). Attention shifts and the Simon effect: A failure to replicate Stoffer (1991).Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung.Google Scholar
  130. 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
  131. White, B. W. (1969). Interference in identifying attributes and attribute names.Perception & Psychophysics,6, 166–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Yantis, S., &MJonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chen-hui Lu
    • 1
  • Robert W. Proctor
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette

Personalised recommendations