Abstract
Responses are faster with spatial S-R correspondence than with noncorrespondence (spatial compatibility effect), even if stimulus location is irrelevant (Simon effect). In two experiments, we sought to determine whether stimuli located above and below a fixation point are coded as left and right (and thus affect the selection of left and right responses) if the visual context suggests such a coding. So, stimuli appeared on the left or right eye of a face’s image that was tilted by 90° to one side or the other (Experiment 1) or varied between upright and 45° or 90° tilting (Experiment 2). Whether stimulus location was relevant (Experiment 1) or not (Experiment 2), responses were faster with correspondence of (face-based) stimulus location and (egocentrically defined) response location, even if stimulus and response locations varied on physically orthogonal dimensions. This suggests that object-based spatial stimulus codes are formed automatically and thus influence the speed of response selection.
Article PDF
References
Bauer, D. W., &Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,34A, 367–380.
Baylis, G. C., &Driver, J. (1993). Visual attention and objects: Evidence for hierarchical coding of location.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 451–470.
Bradshaw, J. L., Willmott, C. J., Umiltà, C., Phillips, J. G., Bradshaw, J. A., &Mattingley, J. B. (1994). Hand-hemispace spatial compatibility, precueing, and stimulus-onset asynchrony.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,56, 170–178.
Broadbent, D. E., &Gregory, M. (1962). Donders’ b- and creactions and S-R compatibility.Journal of Experimental Psychology,63, 575–578.
Corballis, M. C. (1988). Recognition of disoriented shapes.Psychological Review,95, 115–123.
Dutta, A., &Proctor, R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 801–809.
Hinton, G. E., &Parsons, L. M. (1981). Frames of reference and mental imagery. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 261–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,55, 270–279.
Ladavas, E., &Moscovitch, M. (1984). Must egocentric and environmental frames of reference be aligned to produce spatial S-R compatibility effects?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 205–215.
Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., &d’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Acta Psychologica,79, 115–130.
Lippa, Y. (1995).A referential-coding explanation for compatibility effects of physically orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Michaels, C. F. (1989). S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 263–272.
Michaels, C. F. (1993). Destination compatibility, affordances, and coding rules: A reply to Proctor, Van Zandt, Lu, and Weeks (1993).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1121–1127.
Michaels, C. F., &Schilder, S. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibilities between vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: The effects of hand position and posture.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 342–348.
Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., &Ladavas, E. (1984). Compatibility due to the coding of the relative position of the effectors.Acta Psychologica,57, 133–143.
Palmer, S. E. (1989). Reference frames in the perception of shape and orientation. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 121–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Proctor, R. W., Lu, C.-H., Van Zandt, T., &Weeks, D. J. (1994). Affordances, codes, and decision processes: A response to Michaels (1993).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 452–455.
Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L. G., &Umiltà, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects?Acta Psychologica,62, 89–100.
Rock, I. (1973).Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.
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.
Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulusresponse compatibility.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,53, 127–135.
Umiltà, C., &Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility.Psychological Research,49, 81–90.
Umiltà, C., &Nicoletti, R. (1992). An integrated model of the Simon effect. In J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junça de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.),Analytic approaches to human cognition (pp. 331–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
We wish to thank Bettina Herborn for finding and preparing the context stimulus of Experiments 1 and 2 and for conducting Experiment 2, Benjamin Beyer for running Experiment 1, Andreas Schmidt for technical assistance, Heidi John for checking and improving the English, and Robert Proctor, Richard Schweickert, and an anonymous reviewer for constructive criticism and helpful suggestions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hommel, B., Lippa, Y. S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psychon Bull Rev 2, 370–374 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210974
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210974