Abstract
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 each dimension based on its frequency. These results suggest that participants’ internal set can be greater for the horizontal dimension, leading to the right-left prevalence effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., &Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm.Cognitive Psychology,46, 302–358.
Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., &Umiltà, C. (2005). Preparing for perception and action (II): Automatic and effortful processes in response cueing.Visual Cognition,12, 1444–1473.
Brebner, J. (1973). S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice.Acta Psychologica,37, 93–106.
De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eimer, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 837–854.
González, A., Milán, E. G., Pereda, A., &Hochel, M. (2005). The response-cued completion hypothesis and the nature of residual cost in regular switch.Acta Psychologica,120, 327–341.
Hedge, A., &Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice reaction time task.Acta Psychologica,39, 427–439.
Hommel, B. (1996). No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 102–110.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., &Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review,97, 253–270.
Lu, C.-H., &Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 174–207.
Marble, J. G., &Proctor, R. W. (2000). Mixing location-relevant and location-irrelevant choice-reaction tasks: Influences of location mapping on the Simon effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1515–1533.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.
Meiran, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching.Psychological Research,63, 234–249.
Meiran, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule-congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58A, 1023–1041.
Meiran, N., &Chorev, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual task-switching cost.Experimental Psychology,52, 109–124.
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.
Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 333–343.
Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (1985). Responding with hand and foot: The right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 211–216.
Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., Tressoldi, E. P., &Marzi, C. A. (1988). Why are left-right spatial codes easier to form than above-below ones?Perception & Psychophysics,43, 287–292.
Proctor, R. W., Koch, I., &Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Effects of precuing horizontal and vertical dimensions on right-left prevalence.Memory & Cognition,34, 949–958.
Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990).Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., &Nicoletti, R. (2003). Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect?Perception & Psychophysics,65, 1318–1329.
Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Pelosi, A., &Umiltà, C. (2004). Right-left prevalence effect with horizontal and vertical effectors.Perception & Psychophysics,66, 255–263.
Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., &Umiltà, C. (2005). Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes.Psychological Research,69, 167–178.
Rubichi, S., Vu, K.-P. L., Nicoletti, R., &Proctor, R. W. (2006). Spatial coding in two dimensions.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 201–216.
Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology,70, 284–288.
Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.),Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Simon, J. R., &Craft, J. L. (1972). Reaction time in an oddity task: Responding to the “different” element of a three-light display.Journal of Experimental Psychology,92, 405–411.
Sudevan, P., &Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 89–103.
Umiltà, C., &Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.),Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Vu, K.-P. L., Pellicano, A., &Proctor, R. W. (2005). No overall right-left prevalence for horizontal and vertical Simon effects.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 929–938.
Vu, K.-P. L., &Proctor, R. W. (2001). Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 813–828.
Vu, K.-P. L., &Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in twodimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 815–828.
Vu, K.-P. L., Proctor, R. W., &Pick, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses.Psychological Research,64, 25–40.
Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 354–360.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by a grant from the research fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists to A.N. and by a grant-in-aid for scientific research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science awarded to K.Y.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nishimura, A., Yokosawa, K. Preparation for horizontal or vertical dimensions affects the right-left prevalence effect. Perception & Psychophysics 69, 1242–1252 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193959
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193959