A Referential coding Explanation for Compatibility Effects of Physically Orthogonal Stimulus and Response Dimensions

This study addresses the dependence of compatibility effects on responding hand with horizontally oriented stimuli and vertically oriented responses (H-V effect) and with vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses (V-H effect) reported by Bauer and Miller (1982). Experiment 1 replicated the H-V effect. In Experiment 2, the subject was instructed to respond with the hand in line with the response keys. That eliminated the H-V effect. In Experiment 3, the response board was placed to the left or right side of the subject, yielding a considerably reduced H-V effect and a novel compatibility effect dependent on board location. In Experiment 4, the V-H effect was produced when the subject was required to respond with the hand in line with the response keys. With the hand rotated through 90 in Experiment 5, the V-H effect was eliminated, and a main effect of mapping was observed. The results challenge Bauer and Miller's movement-preference hypothesis and support a referential-coding hypothesis proposed by the author. This assumes that response positions are coded in reference to hand posture, so that physically orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions can overlap with respect to their mental representations. The applicability of this hypothesis to other compatibility effects is demonstrated, and its significance for compatibility theories is briefly discussed.     

Influences of hand posture and hand position on compatibility effects for up-down stimuli mapped to left-right responses: evidence for a hand referent hypothesis

Unimanual left-right responses to up-down stimuli show a stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect for which the preferred mapping varies as a function of response eccentricity. Responses made in the right hemispace and, to a lesser extent, at a midline position, are faster with the up-right/down-left mapping than with the up-left/down-right mapping, but responses made in the left hemispace are faster with the up-left/down-right mapping. Also, for responses at the midline position, the preferred mapping switches when the hand is placed in a supine posture instead of the more usual prone posture. The response eccentricity effect can be explained in terms of correspondence of asymmetrically coded stimulus and response features, but it is not obvious whether the hand posture effect can be explained in a similar manner. The present study tested the implications of a hypothesis that the body of the hand provides a frame of reference with respect to which the response switch is coded as left or right. As was predicted by this hand referent hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed that the influence of hand posture (prone and supine) on orthogonal SRC was additive with that of response location. In Experiment 2, the location of the switch relative to the hand was varied by having subjects use either a normal grip in which the switch was held between the thumb and the index finger or a grip in which it was held between the little and the ring fingers. The magnitudes of the mapping preferences varied as a function of the grip and hand posture in a manner consistent with the hand referent hypothesis.     

The role of instructions,practice, and stimulus-hand correspondence on the Simon effect

Numerous studies of two-choice reaction tasks, including auditory and visual Simon tasks (i.e., tasks in which stimulus location is irrelevant) and visual compatibility tasks, have found that only spatial stimulus-response (S-R) correspondence affected S-R compatibility. Their results provided no indication that stimulus-hand correspondence was a significant factor. However, Wascher et al. (2001) suggested that hand coding plays a role in visual and auditory Simon tasks when the instructions are in terms of the finger/hand used for responding. The present experiments examined whether instructing subjects in terms of response locations or fingers/hands influenced the Simon effect for visual and auditory tasks. In Experiments 1-3, only spatial S-R correspondence contributed significantly to the Simon effect, even when the instructions were in terms of the fingers/hands. However, in Experiment 4, which used auditory stimuli and finger/hand instructions, the contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence increased with practice.     

Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Vertically Oriented Stimuli and Horizontally Oriented Responses: Evidence for Spatial Coding

It has previously been shown that, when stimuli positioned above or below a central fixation point (“up” and “down” stimuli) are assigned to left and right responses, the stimulus-response mapping up-left/down-right is more compatible than the mapping up-right/down-left for responses executed by the left hand in the left hemispace, but this relation is reversed for responses executed by the right hand in the right hemispace. In Experiment 1, each hand responded at locations in both hemispaces to dissociate the influence of hand identity from response location, and response location was found to be the determinant of relative compatibility. In Experiment 2 responses were made at the sagittal midline, and an inactive response switch was placed to the left or right to induce coding of the active switch as right or left, respectively. This manipulation of relative location had an effect similar to, although of lesser magnitude than, that produced by physically changing location of the response switch in Experiment 1. It is argued that these results are counter to predictions of a movement-preference account and consistent with the view that spatial coding underlies compatibility effects for orthogonally oriented stimulus and response sets.     

S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand

Bauer and Miller (1982) demonstrated that when responding on the body midline with the right hand, subjects react faster when the pairing between horizontally oriented stimuli (an X to the left or right of fixation) and vertically oriented responses (an up or down finger movement) is left-down, right-up (“anti-clockwise”) but when responding with the left hand, the converse pairing was faster. The present experiments tested whether those preferences held for responses other than on the body midline. Unimanual reaction times for clockwise and anti-clockwise S-R pairings were determined for both hands at the midline and 30 and 60 cm to the left or right. Hand position determined both the direction and extent of the compatibility preference; at eccentric positions the right hand preferred clockwise pairings and the left anticlockwise, the converse of that found by Bauer and Miller. The results extend Bauer and Miller's finding, raise problems for theories of S-R compatibility, and further reveal that the state of the action system “sets up” perception.     

Influences of multiple spatial stimulus and response codes on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility

When up-down stimuli are mapped to left-right responses, an up-right/down-left mapping advantage is found that is modified by response eccentricity and hand posture. These effects can be attributed to correspondence of asymmetric stimulus and response codes formed relative to multiple reference frames. We examined the influence of stimulus-set location on these orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects. In Experiment 1, the stimulus set appeared in the upper or lower display positions. A spatial code for stimulus-set location was formed, producing Simon-type response eccentricity and hand posture effects, but this code had no influence on the coding of the relevant stimuli. In Experiment 2, the stimulus set appeared in the left, center, or right positions relative to the response location, which also varied, to dissociate the effects of response location, relative to the stimulus display and body midline. The former factor influenced the orthogonal SRC effect for both unimanual switch movements and bimanual keypresses, and the latter factor influenced the effect for only unimanual switch movements. Stimulus-set location causes orthogonal Simon-type effects when varied along the stimulus dimension and provides a referent for response coding when varied along the response dimension.     

Compatibility effects based on stimulus and response numerosity

Four choice reaction time experiments documented a stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility effect involving the numbers of stimuli and responses. In Experiment 1, the stimulus consisted of one or two tones, and the correct response was either one or two taps of a response key. Responses were much faster with a compatible S-R assignment, in which the number of taps matched the number of tones, than with an incompatible assignment in which these numbers mismatched. Experiments 2 and 3 replicated this effect, using visual stimuli and bimodal stimuli, respectively, suggesting that auditory/manual rhythmic compatibility is not essential to it. Experiment 4 showed that an analogous but smaller effect is obtained when stimuli are the digits 1 and 2. This new numerosity-based compatibility effect has general theoretical implications regarding the mechanisms responsible for compatibility effects and practical implications for interface design.     

Spatial S-R compatibility with orthogonal stimulus-response relationship

Spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility with unimanual two-finger choice reactions was investigated under conditions in which the spatial orientation of response keys was either parallel to or perpendicular to the orientation of the stimuli. Subjects responded to green or red lights in the left or right visual field (irrelevant stimulus location). The response keys were oriented horizontally on the left or right side of the body midline parallel to the stimuli, and were pressed with the palms facing down (Condition A), or were oriented orthogonally to the stimuli in the midsaggital plane, either horizontally and pressed with palms facing down (B) or facing up (C), or vertically and pressed with palms facing the body (D). The results for Condition A demonstrate the usual spatial S-R compatibility effect between field of stimulation and spatial position of responding finger. For Conditions B and D, a strong reaction time advantage still obtained for those stimulus-finger pairings that are compatible under Condition A. Condition C revealed an RT advantage for the opposite pairings. This shift of the compatibility effect from Condition B to Condition C indicates that the left/right distinction of fingers does not follow a simple, fixed spatio-anatomical mapping rule. The results are discussed within the framework of a hierarchical model of spatial S-R compatibility, with spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping as factors.     

Auditory stimulus-response compatibility: Is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence?

 Simon, Hinrichs, and Craft found that when subjects responded to a tone in the left or right ear with a left or right keypress, both ear-response-location correspondence and ear-hand correspondence affected reaction time. This outcome is in contrast to results obtained for auditory and visual Simon tasks (i.e., tasks in which stimulus location is irrelevant) as well as results obtained in visual stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility studies, which show only an effect of spatial S-R correspondence. Experiment 1 was a replication of Simon et al.'s experiment in which spatial mapping and hand placement (uncrossed, crossed) were varied. The results were inconsistent with those of Simon et al., showing no ear-hand compatibility effect. Experiment 2 was a second replication with an additional condition examined in which the stimuli were visual locations. The results showed no contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence for either auditory or visual stimuli. Experiment 3 was a replication of another experiment by Simon et al. in which tone pitch was relevant and tone location irrelevant. Like Simon et al.'s data, our results showed no indication that stimulus-hand correspondence is a significant factor. Overall, our results imply that regardless of whether tone location is relevant or irrelevant, ear-response-location correspondence is the only factor that contributes to S-R compatibility in auditory two-choice reaction tasks. Received: 15 March 1999 / Accepted: 8 June 1999     

S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding

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.     

Influences of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect

When lateralized responses are made to the locations of vertically arrayed stimuli, two types of mapping effect have been reported: an overall up-right/down-left advantage and mapping preferences that vary with response position. According to Cho and Proctor's (2003) multiple asymmetric codes account, these orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects are due to the correspondence of stimulus polarity and response polarity, as determined by the positions relative to multiple frames of reference. The present study examined these two types of orthogonal compatibility for situations in which participants made left-right responses to the colours of a vertically arrayed stimulus set, and stimulus location was irrelevant. Although a significant orthogonal Simon effect was not evident when responding at a centred, neutral response position, the effect was modulated by response eccentricity (Experiment 2) and hand posture (Experiment 3). These effects are qualitatively similar to those obtained when stimulus location is task relevant. The results imply that, as Proctor and Cho's (2006) polarity correspondence principle suggests, the stimulus polarity code activates the response code of corresponding polarity even when stimulus location is irrelevant to the task.     

Influences of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect

When lateralized responses are made to the locations of vertically arrayed stimuli, two types of mapping effect have been reported: an overall up–right/down–left advantage and mapping preferences that vary with response position. According to Cho and Proctor's (2003) multiple asymmetric codes account, these orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects are due to the correspondence of stimulus polarity and response polarity, as determined by the positions relative to multiple frames of reference. The present study examined these two types of orthogonal compatibility for situations in which participants made left–right responses to the colours of a vertically arrayed stimulus set, and stimulus location was irrelevant. Although a significant orthogonal Simon effect was not evident when responding at a centred, neutral response position, the effect was modulated by response eccentricity (Experiment 2) and hand posture (Experiment 3). These effects are qualitatively similar to those obtained when stimulus location is task relevant. The results imply that, as Proctor and Cho's (2006) polarity correspondence principle suggests, the stimulus polarity code activates the response code of corresponding polarity even when stimulus location is irrelevant to the task.     

Stimulus-response compatibility for absolute and relative spatial correspondence in reaching and in button pressing

Three experiments tested whether stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility might be a function of absolute (as opposed to relative) spatial correspondence-that is, the distance between a stimulus and the place of response. Experiment 1 studied reaching movements toward one of two targets in response to one of six visual stimuli. Stimulus-response pairs that shared relative position were faster than those that did not, and reaction time was faster when the stimulus and one of the potential targets were in close proximity. In Experiment 2 the same effects were found when the hands started from a different position, implicating stimulus target distance, rather than stimulus-hand distance as the critical variable. Experiment 3 employed keypress responses instead of reaches, and the distance effect was nearly absent. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of categorical (e.g. left-right) vs. quantitative (e.g. distance) S-R variables in spatial compatibility.     

Influences of multiple spatial stimulus and response codes on orthogonal stimulus—response compatibility

When up-down stimuli are mapped to left-right responses, an up-right/down-left mapping advantage is found that is modified by response eccentricity and hand posture. These effects can be attributed to correspondence of asymmetric stimulus and response codes formed relative to multiple reference frames. We examined the influence of stimulus-set location on these orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects. In Experiment 1, the stimulus set appeared in the upper or lower display positions. A spatial code for stimulus-set location was formed, producing Simon-type response eccentricity and hand posture effects, but this code had no influence on the coding of the relevant stimuli. In Experiment 2, the stimulus set appeared in the left, center, or right positions relative to the response location, which also varied, to dissociate the effects of response location, relative to the stimulus display and body midline. The former factor influenced the orthogonal SRC effect for both unimanual switch movements and bimanual keypresses, and the latter factor influenced the effect for only unimanual switch movements. Stimulus-set location causes orthogonal Simon-type effects when varied along the stimulus dimension and provides a referent for response coding when varied along the response dimension.     

S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: evidence of the detection of affordances

In choice reaction time, stimuli and responses in some combinations (e.g., based on spatial arrangement) are faster than in other combinations. To test whether motion toward a position yields faster responses at that position, a computer-generated square in front of one hand appeared to move either toward that hand or toward the other hand. Compatible responses (e.g., motion toward left hand/left response) were faster than incompatible responses, even when that opposed traditional positional compatibility. In Experiment 2, subjects responded to the same stimuli but with both hands left, right, or on the body midline. Medial responses were the fastest, showing that destination, rather than mere relative position, was a critical variable. It was suggested that spatial compatibility effects are not unique to position but apply to a variety of task situations, describable by J.J. Gibson's theory of affordances, in which he claims that one perceives the actions (e.g., catching) permitted in a situation.     

Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system

Three experiments examined stimulus-response (S--R) compatibility relationships with the stimulus array perpendicular to the response array. In Experiments I and II, stimuli indicated right and left positions, while the responses were movements up and down. The mapping right/up and left/down was preferable for the right hand, but the reverse mapping was preferable for the left hand. In Experiment III, the stimuli indicated up and down positions, while the responses were movements to the right and left. In this case, the mapping up/left and down/right was preferable for the right hand, and the reverse mapping was preferable for the left hand. The results are most easily explained by assuming that counterclockwise rotational movements are preferable for the right hand, while clockwise is preferable for the left. These preferences are manifest through combinations of implicit movements towards the stimulus and explicit movements towards the response key. This principle is shown to provide a simpler explanation for some previously reported S-R compatibility effects.     

Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities

In recent years research on automatic imitation has received considerable attention because it represents an experimental platform for investigating a number of interrelated theories suggesting that the perception of action automatically activates corresponding motor programs. A key debate within this research centers on whether automatic imitation is any different than other long-term S-R associations, such as spatial stimulus-response compatibility. One approach to resolving this issue is to examine whether automatic imitation shows similar response characteristics as other classes of stimulus-response compatibility. This hypothesis was tested by comparing imitative and spatial compatibility effects with a two alternative forced-choice stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. The stimulus on each trial was a left or right hand with either the index or middle finger tapping down. Speeded responses were performed with the index or middle finger of the right hand in response to the identity or the left-right spatial position of the stimulus finger. Two different tasks were administered: one that involved responding to the stimulus (S-R) and one that involved responding to the opposite stimulus (OS-R; i.e., the one not presented on that trial). Based on previous research and a connectionist model, we predicted standard compatibility effects for both spatial and imitative compatibility in the S-R task, and a reverse compatibility effect for spatial compatibility, but not for imitative compatibility, in the OS-R task. The results from the mean response times, mean percentage of errors, and response time distributions all converged to support these predictions. A second noteworthy result was that the recoding of the finger identity in the OS-R task required significantly more time than the recoding of the left-right spatial position, but the encoding time for the two stimuli in the S-R task was equivalent. In sum, this evidence suggests that the processing of spatial and imitative compatibility is dissociable with regard to two different processes in dual processing models of stimulus-response compatibility.     

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.     

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.     

A Simon effect for stimulus-response duration

A non-spatial variant of the Simon effect for the stimulus-response (S-R) feature of duration is reported. In Experiment 1 subjects were required to press a single response key either briefly or longer in response to the colour of a visual stimulus that varied in its presentation duration. Short keypresses were initiated faster with short than with long stimulus duration whereas the inverse was observed with long keypresses. In Experiment 2 subjects were required to press a left or right key (according to stimulus form) either briefly or longer (according to stimulus colour). The stimuli concurrently varied in their location (left or right) and duration (short or long), which were both task irrelevant. Approximately additive correspondence effects for S-R location and S-R duration were observed. To summarize, the results suggest that the irrelevant stimulus features of location and duration are processed automatically and prime corresponding responses in an independent manner.