Literature DB >> 7643052

Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response.

S Kornblum1, J W Lee.   

Abstract

Five experiments were conducted using 4- and 6-choice stimulus-response compatibility tasks with graphic and alphabetic stimuli, and keypress and verbal responses. A comparison of performance with compatible, incompatible, and neutral conditions shows that when a stimulus set is perceptually, conceptually, or structurally similar to a response set, (a) mean reaction times (RTs) are faster when individual stimuli and responses match than when they do not match, (b) this is true whether the stimulus and response sets are similar on relevant or irrelevant dimensions, (c) this "compatibility effect" is greater when the dimensions are relevant than when they are irrelevant, and (d) whether the dimensions are relevant or irrelevant, the faster RTs are due to a facilitative process and the slower RTs to an interfering process. These results are accounted for by the dimensional overlap model.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7643052     DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.4.855

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  45 in total

1.  The importance of irrelevant-dimension variability in the stroop flanker task.

Authors:  Sharon Morein-Zamir; Avishai Henik; Idit Spitzer-Davidson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-03

2.  Verbal response-effect compatibility.

Authors:  Iring Koch; Wilfried Kunde
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-12

3.  Temporal response-effect compatibility.

Authors:  Wilfried Kunde
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2003-02-25

Review 4.  Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection.

Authors:  Mei-Ching Lien; Robert W Proctor
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-06

5.  Action-effect coupling in pianists.

Authors:  Ulrich C Drost; Martina Rieger; Marcel Brass; Thomas C Gunter; Wolfgang Prinz
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2004-04-07

6.  Working memory demands modulate cognitive control in the Stroop paradigm.

Authors:  Alexander Soutschek; Tilo Strobach; Torsten Schubert
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-03-06

7.  A common coding framework in self-other interaction: evidence from joint action task.

Authors:  Chia-Chin Tsai; Wen-Jui Kuo; Jung-Tai Jing; Daisy L Hung; Ovid J-L Tzeng
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-06-24       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Parallel central processing between tasks: evidence from lateralized readiness potentials.

Authors:  Mei-Ching Lien; Eruc Ruthruff; Shulan Hsieh; Yen-Ting Yu
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-02

9.  Best not to bet on the horserace: A comment on Forrin and MacLeod (2017) and a relevant stimulus-response compatibility view of colour-word contingency learning asymmetries.

Authors:  James R Schmidt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-02

10.  Functional brain and age-related changes associated with congruency in task switching.

Authors:  Teal S Eich; David Parker; Dan Liu; Hwamee Oh; Qolamreza Razlighi; Yunglin Gazes; Christian Habeck; Yaakov Stern
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 3.139

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.