Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination,reduction,and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects

Abstract

In two-choice tasks, the compatible mapping of left stimulus to left response and right stimulus to right response typically yields better performance than does the incompatible mapping. Nonetheless, when compatible and incompatible mappings are mixed within a block of trials, the spatial compatibility effect is eliminated. Two experiments evaluated whether the elimination of compatibility effects by mixing compatible and incompatible mappings is a general or specific phenomenon. Left–right physical locations, arrow directions, and location words were mapped to keypress responses in Experiment 1 and vocal responses in Experiment 2. With keypresses, mixing compatible and incompatible mappings eliminated the compatibility effect for physical locations and arrow directions, but enhanced it for words. With vocal responses, mixing significantly reduced the compatibility effect only for words. Overall, the mixing effects suggest that elimination or reduction of compatibility effects occurs primarily when the stimulus-response sets have both conceptual and perceptual similarity. This elimination may be due to suppression of a direct response-selection route, but to account for the full pattern of mixing effects it is also necessary to consider changes in an indirect response-selection route and the temporal activation properties of different stimulus-response sets.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baldo

J. V.

, Shimamura

A. P.

, & Prinzmetal

(1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-like tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 427–437.

Barber

, & O'Leary, M. (1997). The relevance of salience: Towards an activation account of irrelevant stimulus- response compatibility effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 135–172). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Deininger

R.L.

, & Fitts, P.M.(1955). Stimulus-response compatibility, information theory, and perceptual-motor performance. In H. Quastler (Ed.), Information theory in psychology: Problems and method (pp. 316–341). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

De Jong

(1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 88, 187–207.

Duncan

(1977a). Response selection errors in spatial choice reaction tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 415–423.

Duncan

(1977b). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 49–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Duncan

(1978). Response selection in spatial choice reaction: Further evidence against associative models. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 429–440.

Ehrenstein

, & Proctor

R. W.

(1998). Selecting mapping rules and responses in mixed compatibility four-choice tasks. Psychological Research, 61, 231–248.

Eimer

(1995). S-R compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 837–854.

10.

Greenwald

A. G.

(1970). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 20–26.

11.

Heister

, & Schroeder-Heister

(1994). Spatial S-R compatibility: Positional instructions vs. compatibility instruction. Acta Psychologica, 85, 15–24.

12.

Hommel

(1993). Relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280–290.

13.

Hommel

, & Prinz

(Eds.). (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

14.

Kornblum

, Hasbroucq

, & Osman

(1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

15.

C.-H.

, & Proctor

R. W.

(2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: Effects of S-R associations strength and relative timing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 95–136.

16.

Proctor

R. W.

, & Vu

K.-P. L.

(2002a). Eliminating, magnifying, and reversing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant and irrelevant trials. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance Vol. XIX (pp. 443–473). Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

17.

Proctor

R. W.

, & Vu

K.-P.L.

(2002b). Mixing location irrelevant and relevant trials: Influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects. Memory & Cognition, 30, 281–294.

18.

Proctor

R. W.

, & Wang

(1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. In B. Hommel& W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 11–37). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

19.

Roswarski

T. E.

, & Proctor

R. W.

(1996). Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks. Psychological Research, 59, 196–211.

20.

Shaffer

L.H.

(1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284–288.

21.

Stoffels

E. J.

(1996a). On stage robustness and response selection routes: Further evidence. Acta Psychologica, 91, 67–88.

22.

Stoffels

E. J.

(1996b). Uncertainty and processing routes in the selection of a response: An S-R compatibility study. Acta Psychologica, 94, 227–252.

23.

Van Duren

, & Sanders

A. F.

(1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs. Acta Psychologica, 69, 83–94.

24.

Wang

, & Proctor

R. W.

(1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201–1217.