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.     

Can Norman Daniels Help You Get a Wheelchair? A Commentary on Durocher et al.

Durocher and colleagues (2019) argue that Norman Daniels’s notion of just health could provide a useful framework for decreasing inequities in access to assistive technology. I argue that it would provide limited help for two reasons. First, Daniels’s reliance on normal species functioning as the goal of health care and his assumptions regarding the impact of normal species functioning on reasonable life projects create substantial difficulties for application to assistive technology. Second, although Daniels’s requirements for distributive justice provide a critical starting point for any discussion of health equity, these requirements appear already met within current assistive technology funding schemes.