Stimulus-Response Compatibility and the Motor System

Abstract

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.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Begbie

G. H.

(1959). Accuracy of aiming in linear hand-movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 11, 65–75.

Bertera

J. H.

Callan

J. R.

Parsons

O. A.

Pishkin

(1975). Lateral stimulus-response compatibility effects in the oculo-motor system. Acta Psychologica 39, 175–81.

Braus

(1954). Anatomie des Menschen Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Carlsöö

(1972). How man moves London: William Heinemann Ltd.

Cotton

Tzeng

O. J. L.

Hardyck

(1977). A response instruction by visual-field interaction: S—R compatibility effect or?. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 10, 475–7.

Cotton

Tzeng

Hardyck

(1980). Role of cerebral hemispheric processing in the visual half-field stimulus-response compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6, 13–23.

Craft

J. L.

Simon

(1970). Processing symbolic information from a visual display: Interference from an irrelevant directional cue. Journal of Experimental Psychology 83, 415–20.

Duncan

(1977a). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks. Dornic

Attention and performance. Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum Volume 6.

Duncan

(1977b). Response selection errors in spatial choice reaction tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29, 415–23.

10.

Fitts

P. M.

Seeger

C. M.

(1953). S—R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology 46, 193–210.

11.

Gray

(1901). Anatomy, descriptive and surgical Philadelphia: Running Press.

12.

Kahneman

(1973). Attention and effort Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

13.

Keele

S. W.

(1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin 70, 387–403.

14.

Liberman

A. M.

(1956). Some results of research on speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29, 117–23.

15.

Liberman

A. M.

Delattre

Cooper

F. S.

(1952). The role of selected stimulus variables in the perception of the unvoiced stop consonants. American Journal of Psychology 65, 497–516.

16.

Loveless

N. E.

(1962). Direction-of-motion stereotypes: A review. Ergonomics 5, 357–83.

17.

Miller

(1982). Discrete vs. continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8, 273–96.

18.

Pachella

R. G.

(1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information-processing research. Kantowitz

Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum.

19.

Pachella

R. G.

Pew

(1968). Speed-accuracy trade-off in reaction time: Effect of discrete criterion times. Journal of Experimental Psychology 76, 19–24.

20.

Peterson

J. R.

(1965). Response—response compatibility effects in a two-hand pointing task. Human Factors 7, 231–6.

21.

Rohmert

(1960). Ermittlung von Erholungspausen fues statische Arbeit der Menschen. Internationale Zeitschrift fuer angewandte Physiologie enschliesslich Arbeits-physiologie 18, 123–64.

22.

Simon

J. R.

(1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology 81, 174–6.

23.

Simon

J. R.

Rudell

A. P.

(1967). Auditory S—R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology 51, 300–4.

24.

Stanovich

K. E.

Pachella

R. G.

(1977). Encoding, stimulus-response compatibility, and stages of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3, 411–21.

25.

Sternberg

(1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donder's method. Acta Psychologica 30, 276–315.

26.

Theios

(1973). Reaction time measurements in the study of memory processes: Theory and data. Bower

The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. New York: Academic Press Volume 7.

27.

Theios

(1975). The components of response latency in simple human information processing tasks. Rabbitt

Dornic

Attention and performance. New York: Academic Press Volume 5.

28.

Van Cott

H. P.

Kincade

R. G.

(1972). Human engineering guide to equipment design Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

29.

Wallace

R. J.

(1971). S—R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology 88, 354–60.

30.

Williams

Lissner

H. R.

(1962). Biomechanics of human motion Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.