No overall right-left prevalence for horizontal

The present study confirmed that there is no overall right—left prevalence effect for Simon tasks, in which stimulus location is irrelevant, when (1) the stimulus and response sets vary along both horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously, (2) the stimulus set varies along both dimensions, but the response set varies along only one dimension, and (3) the stimuli and responses vary in one of four possible locations and responses are made by a unimanual joystick movement. In all experiments, Simon effects of similar magnitude were evident for both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions. The findings suggest that the right—left prevalence effect observed with two-dimensional location-relevant tasks is not due to stronger overall automatic activation of horizontal codes but to different translation efficiencies in intentional response selection processes.     

Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect?

In four experiments, we investigated whether a right-left prevalence effect occurs for the Simon task, in which stimulus location is irrelevant, when the stimulus and the response sets vary along horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously. Simon effects were evident for both dimensions, and they were of similar magnitude, indicating no prevalence effect. Manipulations of the relative salience of the dimensions for the stimulus and the response sets resulted in a larger Simon effect for the more salient dimension than for the less salient one, but there was no overall prevalence effect. The results indicate that manipulations of salience affect the relative magnitudes of automatic response activation for the vertical and the horizontal dimensions but that the right-left prevalence effect is due to a coding bias in intentional response selection processes when stimulus location is relevant.     

The prevalence effect in two-dimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions

When stimulus-response (S-R) sets vary along horizontal and vertical dimensions, a right-left prevalence effect is often obtained in which the horizontal compatibility effect is larger than the vertical compatibility effect. Vu and Proctor (2001) showed that the prevalence effect varies as a function of the dimension made salient by the response configuration. A salient features coding interpretation of this result implies that manipulating the salience of the stimulus display should produce similar results and that S-R translation should be fastest when salient features of the stimulus and the response sets correspond. Experiment 1 manipulated spatial proximity to make the vertical or the horizontal stimulus dimension salient. Neutral displays yielded a typical right-left prevalence effect, and this effect was enhanced by horizontal-salient displays and eliminated by vertical-salient displays. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the benefit for horizontal (or vertical) compatibility was larger when the salient features of both the stimulus and the response sets emphasized the horizontal (or the vertical) dimension than when only one did. The results support salient features coding as an explanation for the prevalence effect obtained with two-dimensional S-R arrangements.     

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

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 e achdimension basedon its frequency. These resultssuggest that participants' internal set can be greater for the horizontal dimension, leading to the right-left prevalence effect.     

Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility

When stimulus and response sets vary along horizontal and vertical dimensions, the horizontal dimension is more dominant than the vertical one, an effect called right-left prevalence. Three accounts have been proposed that attribute the effect to a reduced ability to code vertical locations when horizontal codes are also present, the use of right-left effectors, or a difference in salience of the 2 dimensions. The accounts differ in terms of whether the ability to code and process the 2 dimensions is of limited capacity and whether the prevalence effect is a consequence of the effectors used for responding. The authors report 4 experiments that evaluated these issues. Results indicate that use of right-left effectors is important to the right-left prevalence effect because it increases the salience of the horizontal dimension. However, a top-bottom prevalence effect can be obtained if the vertical dimension is made more salient.     

Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes

The present work investigated the right-left prevalence effect caused by the automatic activation of horizontal and vertical spatial codes in a task (Simon task) in which spatial information is task-irrelevant. Experiment 1 showed a horizontal Simon effect and a vertical Simon effect with a two-dimensional stimulus-response set. In Experiments 2 and 3, the right-left prevalence was obtained in two-dimensional Simon tasks with two contralateral effectors and four effectors respectively. Experiment 4 showed that horizontal coding is based on multiple spatial codes, whereas only one spatial code was formed for vertical coding. On the whole, these results support the notion that the right-left prevalence effect is a general phenomenon affecting spatial coding, and suggest that the horizontal dimension is prevalent because it is based on multiple spatial codes.     

Effects of precuing horizontal and vertical dimensions on right—left prevalence

When stimuli and responses can be coded along horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously, a right-left prevalence effect is often obtained for which the advantage for a compatible mapping is larger on the horizontal dimension than on the vertical dimension. The present study investigated the role of preparatory processes in this right-left prevalence effect using a method in which the relevant dimension was cued at short and long intervals prior to presentation of the target stimulus. In three experiments, the right-left prevalence effect did not vary significantly in magnitude as a function of cue-target interval, suggesting that the effect is due primarily to relative salience of the horizontal and vertical codes, as determined by the task structure, and not to a greater ease of attending to the horizontal dimension.     

Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses

For two-choice tasks in which stimulus and response locations vary along horizontal and vertical dimensions, the spatial compatibility effect is often stronger on the horizontal than vertical dimension. Umiltà and Nicoletti [(1990) Spatial stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland] attributed this right-left prevalence effect to an inability to code vertical location when horizontal codes are present simultaneously. Hommel [(1996) Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 102–110] suggested instead that it reflects a voluntary strategy. This study reports four experiments that examine this issue. Experiment 1 was a conceptual replication of Hommel's Experiment 1, with responses made on a numeric keypad and subjects instructed in terms of the vertical or horizontal dimension. The results replicated Hommel's findings that showed a right-left advantage with horizontal instructions; however, with vertical instructions, we found a benefit of vertical compatibility alone that he did not. This benefit for vertical compatibility alone was eliminated in Experiment 2 using a varied practice schedule similar to that used by Hommel. Experiment 3 showed right-left prevalence and a benefit of vertical compatibility alone, even with varied practice and vertical instructions, when subjects responded on perpendicularly arranged handgrips. These benefits were eliminated in Experiment 4 using Hommel's method of urging subjects to respond only in terms of the instructed dimension. With bimanual responses, right-left prevalence is a robust phenomenon that is evident when comparing across vertical and horizontal instructions and, when the right-left distinction is relatively salient, within the vertical instructions condition alone. Received: 4 February 2000 / Accepted: 5 May 2000     

Influences on the Simon effect of prior practice with spatially incompatible mappings: Transfer within and between horizontal and vertical dimensions

The Simon effect refers to the fact that for tasks in which stimulus location is irrelevant and a nonspatial attribute is relevant, responses are typically faster when stimulus and response locations correspond than when they do not. Two experiments examined the influence of prior practice with an incompatible relevant spatial mapping on the Simon effect as a function of the dimension (vertical or horizontal) along which the stimuli and responses varied in practice and transfer sessions. With 72 practice trials, the Simon effect in the transfer session was eliminated only when the spatial dimension was horizontal for both practice and transfer. With 600 practice trials, the Simon effect was eliminated for all combinations of practice and transfer dimensions, with noncorresponding responses showing an advantage when the dimension was horizontal for both practice and transfer. Within-dimension transfer effects for the horizontal dimension after a small amount of practice can be attributed to reactivation of specific stimulus-response associations defined for the practice task. However, the between-dimension transfer effects evident after a larger amount of practice cannot be explained in this manner and suggest that the subjects acquired a general procedure of responding opposite to the stimulus location.     

Influence of auditory and audiovisual stimuli on the right–left prevalence effect

When auditory stimuli are used in two-dimensional spatial compatibility tasks, where the stimulus and response configurations vary along the horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously, a right–left prevalence effect occurs in which horizontal compatibility dominates over vertical compatibility. The right–left prevalence effects obtained with auditory stimuli are typically larger than that obtained with visual stimuli even though less attention should be demanded from the horizontal dimension in auditory processing. In the present study, we examined whether auditory or visual dominance occurs when the two-dimensional stimuli are audiovisual, as well as whether there will be cross-modal facilitation of response selection for the horizontal and vertical dimensions. We also examined whether there is an additional benefit of adding a pitch dimension to the auditory stimulus to facilitate vertical coding through use of the spatial-musical association of response codes (SMARC) effect, where pitch is coded in terms of height in space. In Experiment 1, we found a larger right–left prevalence effect for unimodal auditory than visual stimuli. Neutral, non-pitch coded, audiovisual stimuli did not result in cross-modal facilitation, but did show evidence of visual dominance. The right–left prevalence effect was eliminated in the presence of SMARC audiovisual stimuli, but the effect influenced horizontal rather than vertical coding. Experiment 2 showed that the influence of the pitch dimension was not in terms of influencing response selection on a trial-to-trial basis, but in terms of altering the salience of the task environment. Taken together, these findings indicate that in the absence of salient vertical cues, auditory and audiovisual stimuli tend to be coded along the horizontal dimension and vision tends to dominate audition in this two-dimensional spatial stimulus–response task.     

Transfer of noncorresponding spatial associations to the auditory Simon task

Four experiments examined transfer of noncorresponding spatial stimulus-response associations to an auditory Simon task for which stimulus location was irrelevant. Experiment 1 established that, for a horizontal auditory Simon task, transfer of spatial associations occurs after 300 trials of practice with an incompatible mapping of auditory stimuli to keypress responses. Experiments 2-4 examined transfer effects within the auditory modality when the stimuli and responses were varied along vertical and horizontal dimensions. Transfer occurred when the stimuli and responses were arrayed along the same dimension in practice and transfer but not when they were arrayed along orthogonal dimensions. These findings indicate that prior task-defined associations have less influence on the auditory Simon effect than on the visual Simon effect, possibly because of the stronger tendency for an auditory stimulus to activate its corresponding response.     

Orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant

The above-right/below-left mapping advantage with vertical stimuli and horizontal responses is known as the orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) effect. We investigated whether the orthogonal SRC effect emerges with irrelevant stimulus dimensions. In Experiment 1, participants responded with a right or left key press to the colour of the stimulus presented above or below the fixation. We observed an above-right/below-left advantage (orthogonal Simon effect). In Experiment 2, we manipulated the polarity in the response dimension by varying the horizontal location of the response set. The orthogonal Simon effect decreased and even reversed as the left response code became more positive. This result provides evidence for the automatic activation of the positive and negative response codes by the corresponding positive and negative stimulus codes. These findings extended the orthogonal SRC effect based on coding asymmetry to an irrelevant stimulus dimension.     

Orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant

The above-right/below-left mapping advantage with vertical stimuli and horizontal responses is known as the orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect. We investigated whether the orthogonal SRC effect emerges with irrelevant stimulus dimensions. In Experiment 1, participants responded with a right or left key press to the colour of the stimulus presented above or below the fixation. We observed an above-right/below-left advantage (orthogonal Simon effect). In Experiment 2, we manipulated the polarity in the response dimension by varying the horizontal location of the response set. The orthogonal Simon effect decreased and even reversed as the left response code became more positive. This result provides evidence for the automatic activation of the positive and negative response codes by the corresponding positive and negative stimulus codes. These findings extended the orthogonal SRC effect based on coding asymmetry to an irrelevant stimulus dimension.     

Stimulus-set location does not affect orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility

In two-choice tasks for which stimuli and responses vary along orthogonal dimensions, one stimulus-response mapping typically yields better performance than another. For unimanual movement responses, the hand used to respond, hand posture (prone or supine), and response eccentricity influence this orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect. All accounts of these phenomena attribute them to response-related processes. Two experiments examined whether manipulation of stimulus-set position along the dimension on which the stimuli varied influences orthogonal SRC in a manner similar to the way that response location does. The experiments differed in whether the stimulus dimension was vertical and the response dimension horizontal, or vice versa. In both experiments, an advantage of mapping up with right and down with left was evident for several response modes, and stimulus-set position had no influence on the orthogonal SRC effect. The lack of effect of stimulus-set position is in agreement with the emphasis that present accounts place on response-related processes. We favor a multiple asymmetric codes account, for which the present findings imply that the polarity of stimulus codes does not vary across task contexts although the polarity of response codes does.     

No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes

Reaction time is known to depend on spatial stimulus-response compatibility in both the horizontal and the vertical dimensions. However, if both dimensions are varied in the same task, horizontal but not vertical compatibility affects performance, even if subjects are instructed to attend to the vertical dimension only (Nicoletti & Umiltà, 1984). Experiment 1 compared the effect of horizontal and vertical instructions in a task with left- versus right-handed key responses placed at a top versus bottom location. A horizontal-prevalence effect was observed only with a horizontal, and not with a vertical, instruction. This suggests that subjects might not have heeded the vertical instruction in the Nicoletti and Umiltà study but instead attended to the horizontal dimension. Experiment 2 did not yield any horizontal prevalence with one-handed responses (joystick movements). This indicates that top-bottom codes become ineffective only if the responses suggest an exclusively horizontal response coding. In sum, results demonstrated multiple spatial coding of stimuli and responses under appropriate conditions and suggest that the right-left codes do not dominate the top-bottom spatial codes.     

Time course of the Simon effect in pointing movements for horizontal, vertical, and acoustic stimuli: evidence for a common mechanism

In the Simon effect, responses to a non-spatial attribute are faster when the irrelevant spatial position of the stimulus corresponds to the position of the response. It was suggested that there are two distinct mechanisms involved in the Simon effect. In the visuomotor Simon effect, the stimulus transiently activates the corresponding response which results in a decaying Simon effect function (i.e., the Simon effect decreases in slower reaction time [RT]-bins). In contrast, the cognitive Simon effect arises from a conflict between stimulus and response codes and is associated with a stable Simon effect function (i.e., the Simon effect is the same in fast and slow RT-bins). We recorded RTs and motor parameters of pointing movements in a Simon paradigm. Consistent with the previous research, the time course of the Simon effect in RTs was stable with vertical visual and horizontal acoustic stimuli (cognitive Simon tasks), but decreased with horizontal visual stimuli (visuomotor Simon task). In contrast, the Simon effect in motor parameters decreased across RT-bins in all conditions, supporting the idea that only a single, common mechanism underlies the Simon effect.     

Dynamic aspects of stimulus-response correspondence: evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon effect

It has been recently proposed that the time course of the Simon effect may vary across tasks, which might reflect different types of stimulus-response (S-R) transmissions (E. Wascher, U. Schatz, T. Kuder, & R. Verleger, 2001). The authors tested this notion in 4 experiments by comparing Simon effects evoked by horizontal and vertical S-R arrangements. The temporal properties of the effect, as well as lateralized readiness potential-difference waves, indicated a fast and transient influence of the horizontal, but a slow and sustained influence of the vertical spatial stimulus feature on performance. Additional evidence for this temporal dissociation was obtained in experiments that induced a shortening or lengthening of the mean response time. Thus, the data strongly indicate that there are 2 temporally dissociable mechanisms involved in generating the Simon effect for horizontal and vertical S-R relations.     

Suppression of irrelevant activation in the horizontal and vertical Simon task differs quantitatively not qualitatively

The Simon effect is usually explained by the assumption that the irrelevant stimulus location automatically activates the corresponding response. In the case of incongruent stimulus–response assignments automatically activated responses therefore have to be suppressed to ensure correct responses. This account, however, has been called into question for other than horizontally arranged visual Simon tasks. We investigated whether there is a qualitative or quantitative difference in suppression of irrelevant activation between horizontally and vertically arranged Simon tasks, using delta-function analyses. Sequential analyses revealed suppression after incongruent trials in both tasks, supporting the idea of a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference between the tasks. We conclude that automatic response activation is weaker in vertical tasks resulting in lower inhibitory demands as compared to horizontal tasks.     

Decay of Stimulus Spatial Code in Horizontal and Vertical Simon Tasks

Evidence on the processes underlying the horizontal and vertical Simon effect is still controversial. The present study uses experimental manipulations to selectively delay the stages of response execution, response selection, and stimulus identification in three experiments. A reduction is observed for both horizontal and vertical Simon effects when response execution is delayed by a go-signal presented 400–600 ms post-stimulus onset or when a spatial precue is presented 200–400 ms before the stimulus. When the overlap between stimulus spatial code formation and response selection is prevented by decreasing stimulus discriminability, the horizontal Simon effect decays, but the vertical Simon effect does not change. Activation theories, which propose a decay of the automatically activated response ipsilateral to the stimulus, mainly apply to the horizontal Simon effect. In contrast, translation theories, which propose that the effect occurs when stimulus features are translated into a response code, are more suitable to account for the vertical Simon effect.     

Transfer of orthogonal stimulus–response mappings to an orthogonal Simon task

When up–down stimulus locations are mapped to left–right keypresses, an overall advantage for the up–right/down–left mapping is often obtained that varies as a function of response eccentricity. This orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) effect also occurs when stimulus location is irrelevant, a phenomenon called the orthogonal Simon effect, and has been attributed to correspondence of stimulus and response code polarities. The Simon effect for horizontal stimulus–response (S–R) arrangements has been shown to be affected by short-term S–R associations established through the mapping used for a prior SRC task in which stimulus location was relevant. We examined whether such associations also transfer between orthogonal SRC and Simon tasks and whether correspondence of code polarities continues to contribute to performance in the Simon task. In Experiment 1, the orthogonal Simon effect was larger after practising with an up–right/down–left mapping of visual stimuli to responses than with the alternative mapping, for which the orthogonal Simon effect tended to reverse. Experiment 2 showed similar results when practice was with high (up) and low (down) pitch tones, though the influence of practice mapping was not as large as that in Experiment 1, implying that the short-term S–R associations acquired in practice are at least in part not modality specific. In Experiment 3, response eccentricity and practice mapping were shown to have separate influences on the orthogonal Simon effect, as expected if both code polarity and acquired S–R associations contribute to performance.