Abstract
Stimulus-response translation plays a prominent role in the performance of choice-reaction tasks. Our previous work with spatial-precuing and symbolic-cuing tasks has provided evidence that the codes used for translation are based on the salient features of the stimulus and response sets. Responding is fastest for situations in which the salient features for the respective sets correspond. In this chapter, phenomena previously attributed to motor-programming processes or to direct perceptual-motor interactions are shown to be due to translational coding. These coding effects are important cognitive factors in human performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
6. References
Bauer, D. W. , & Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,34A, 367–380.
Cauraugh, J. H., & Horrell, J. F. (1989). Advance preparation of discrete motor responses: Nonmotoric evidence. Acta Psychologica, 72, 117–138.
Chase, W. G. , & Clark, H. H. (1971). Semantics in the perception of verticality.British Journal of Psychology. 63. 311–326.
Dornier, L. A., & Reeve, T. G. (1990). Evaluation of commpatibility effects in the precuing of arm and direction parameters. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 37–49.
Goodman, D. , & Kelso, J. A. S. (1980). Are movements prepared in parts? Not under compatible (nautralized) conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 475–495.
Gordon, P. C. (1990). Perceptual-motor processing in speech. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 343–362). Amsterdam: North-HoHand.
Gordon, P. C. & Meyer, D. E. (1984). Perceptual-motor processing of phonetic features in speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 153–178.
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.
Klapp, S. T. (1977). Reaction time analysis of programmed control. Exercise and Sport Sciences Review. 5, 231–253.
Klapp, S. T. (1981). Motor programming is not the only process which can influence RT: Some thoughts on the Marteniuk and MacKenzie analysis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 13, 320–328.
Larish, D. D. (1986). Influence of stimulus-response translations on response programming: Examining the relationship of arm, direction, and extent of movement. Acta Psychologica, 61, 53–70.
Larish, D. D., & Frekany, G. A. (1985). Planning and preparing expected and unexpected movements: Reexamining the relationships of arm, direction, and extent of movement. Journal of Motor Behavior. 17, 168–189.
Marteniuk, R. G. , & MacKenzie, C. L. (1981). Methods in the study of motor programming: Is it just a matter of simple vs. choice reaction time? A comment on Klapp et al. (1979). Journal of Motor Behavior. 13, 313–319.
Meijer, 0. G. , & Roth, K. (1988). Complex movement behaviour: ‘The’ motor-action controversy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Michaels, C. F. (1988). S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231–240.
Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 8, 273–296.
Nicoletti, R., & Umilta, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception & Psychophvsics, 35, 333–343.
Olson, G. M., & Laxar, K. (1973). Asymmetries in processing the terms‘right’and ‘left’.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 284–290.
Proctor, R. W. & Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger resonses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 623–639.
Proctor, R. W. , & Reeve, T. G. (1986). Salient-feature coding operations in spatial precuing tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 277–285.
Proctor, R. W. , & Reeve, T. G. (1988). The acquisition of task-specific productions and modification of declarative representations in spatial-precuing tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 182–196.
Proctor, R. W. , Reeve, T. G. , Weeks, D. J., Dornier, L. A. , & Van Zandt, T. (in press). Acquisition, retention, and transfer of response-selection skill in choice-reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, and Cognition.
Proctor, R. W., Van Zandt, T., Lu, C.-H., & Weeks, D. J. (1990, November). Stimulus-response compatibility for destination of apparent motion: Catching affordances or directional coding? Paper presented at the 31st annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.
Proctor, R. W. , Weeks, D. J., & Kelly, P. (1990). Performance with consonant-vowel and spatial-location stimulus and response sets: A salient-features account. Manuscript in preparation.
Reeve, T. G. , & Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 541–553.
Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1985). Nonmotoric translation processes in the preparation of discrete finger responses: A rebuttal of Miller’s (1985) analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 234–240.
Reeve, T. G. , & Proctor, R. W. (1990). The salient-features coding princple for spatial and symbolic-comaptibility effects. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 163–180). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444–474.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The movement precuing technique: Assumptions, applications, and extensions. In R. A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 231–274). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Teichner, W. H., & Krebs, M. J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review. 81. 75–98.
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.
Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (in press). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Proctor, R.W., Reeve, T.G. (1991). The Prevalence of Salient-Features Coding in Choice-Reaction Tasks. In: Requin, J., Stelmach, G.E. (eds) Tutorials in Motor Neuroscience. NATO ASI Series, vol 62. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3626-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3626-6_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5609-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-3626-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive