OBJECTIVE: We explored constraints in responding to spatially variable stimuli when hand movements are transformed into inverse movements of a tool. BACKGROUND: Generally, the spatial compatibility between stimuli and responses is a powerful determinant of performance. However, many tasks require the use of simple tools such as first-class levers that transform hand movements into inverted movements of a tool. What types of compatibility effects arise with such tools? METHOD: Participants moved the tip of a pointer to the left or right according to the color of a stimulus. The pointer was manipulated either directly, so that a hand movement caused a pointer movement in the corresponding direction, or indirectly, so that the hand moved the pointer in the opposite direction. RESULTS: Responding was faster when the location of stimulus and the movement direction of the tool corresponded than when they did not correspond, independent of the movement direction of the hand. This occurred when stimulus location was task relevant (Experiment 1) as well as when it was task irrelevant (Experiment 2). Furthermore, responding was delayed when the hand and the relevant end of the tool moved in noncorresponding rather than corresponding directions. CONCLUSION: These results point to two distinct compatibility effects in tool use: one that relates to the transformation of stimuli into goals and one that relates to the transformation of goals into movements. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include the prediction and possibly manipulation of unwanted "fulcrum effects" in laparoscopic surgery and other first-class lever movements.
OBJECTIVE: We explored constraints in responding to spatially variable stimuli when hand movements are transformed into inverse movements of a tool. BACKGROUND: Generally, the spatial compatibility between stimuli and responses is a powerful determinant of performance. However, many tasks require the use of simple tools such as first-class levers that transform hand movements into inverted movements of a tool. What types of compatibility effects arise with such tools? METHOD:Participants moved the tip of a pointer to the left or right according to the color of a stimulus. The pointer was manipulated either directly, so that a hand movement caused a pointer movement in the corresponding direction, or indirectly, so that the hand moved the pointer in the opposite direction. RESULTS: Responding was faster when the location of stimulus and the movement direction of the tool corresponded than when they did not correspond, independent of the movement direction of the hand. This occurred when stimulus location was task relevant (Experiment 1) as well as when it was task irrelevant (Experiment 2). Furthermore, responding was delayed when the hand and the relevant end of the tool moved in noncorresponding rather than corresponding directions. CONCLUSION: These results point to two distinct compatibility effects in tool use: one that relates to the transformation of stimuli into goals and one that relates to the transformation of goals into movements. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include the prediction and possibly manipulation of unwanted "fulcrum effects" in laparoscopic surgery and other first-class lever movements.