Differentiating types of set-level compatibility

被引:33
作者
Proctor, RW
Wang, HF
机构
[1] Purdue University, West Lafayette
来源
THEORETICAL ISSUES IN STIMULUS-RESPONSE COMPATIBILITY | 1997年 / 118卷
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0166-4115(97)80024-6
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Two types of stimulus-response compatibility effects can be measured. Element-level effects are differences in reaction time (RT) for alternative mappings of the members of a stimulus set to the members of a response set. Set-level effects are differences in RT between various combinations of stimulus sets and response sets when the most compatible element-level mappings for each combination are compared. Kornblum, Hasbroucq, and Osman (1990) equated set-level compatibility with dimensional overlap and proposed a dimensional overlap model in which automatic activation of the response corresponding to a stimulus is an increasing function of dimensional overlap. This model thus predicts a positive relation between set- and element-level compatibilities. Although Kornblum et al. treat set-level compatibility as a unitary construct, there are conceptual distinctions that can be made between different types of set-level compatibility. We present three lines of research that use different ways of manipulating set-level compatibility. Each shows a distinct pattern of effects for the relation between set-and element-level compatibility, suggesting that different types of set-level manipulations may in turn affect different processes and not have the same influence on element-level compatibility effects. We discuss issues in measuring the relation between set- and element-level compatibility effects and propose that it is necessary to distinguish different types of set-level compatibility rather than combining them under the unitary construct of dimensional overlap. © 1997 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:11 / 37
页数:27
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
Alluisi, E.A., Muller Jr., P.F., Fitts, P.M., An information analysis of verbal and motor responses in a forced-paced serial task (1957) Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, pp. 153-158
[2]  
Bauer, D.W., Miller, J., Stimulus-response compatibility and the motor system (1982) Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34 A, pp. 367-380
[3]  
Brainard, R.W., Irby, T.S., Fitts, P.M., Alluisi, E.A., Some variables influencing the rate of gain of information (1962) Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, pp. 105-110
[4]  
Dutta, A., Proctor, R.W., Persistence of S-R compatibility effects with extended practice (1992) Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, pp. 801-809
[5]  
Dutta, A., Proctor, R.W., The role of feedback in learning spatially indirect choice reaction tasks: Does it have one? (1993) Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 37th Annual Meeting, pp. 1320-1324. , Santa Monica, CA
[6]  
Fitts, P.M., Deininger, R.L., S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes (1954) Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, pp. 483-491
[7]  
Fitts, P.M., Seeger, C.M., S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes (1953) Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, pp. 199-210
[8]  
Frowein, H.W., Sanders, A.F., Effects of visual degradation, S-R compatibility, and foreperiod duration on choice reaction time and movement time (1978) Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, pp. 106-108
[9]  
Greenwald, A.G., A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory (1970) Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, pp. 20-25
[10]  
Hasbroucq, T., Guiard, Y., Ottomani, L., Principles of response determination: The list-rule model of S-R compatibility (1990) Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, pp. 327-330