The Experts below are selected from a list of 9579 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Robert W. Proctor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
flowers and spiders in Spatial stimulus response Compatibility does affective valence influence selection of task sets or selection of responses
Cognition & Emotion, 2018Co-Authors: Motonori Yamaguchi, Jing Chen, Scott Mishler, Robert W. ProctorAbstract:ABSTRACTThe present study examined the effect of stimulus valence on two levels of selection in the cognitive system, selection of a task-set and selection of a response. In the first experiment, participants performed a Spatial Compatibility task (pressing left and right keys according to the locations of stimuli) in which stimulus-response mappings were determined by stimulus valence. There was a standard Spatial stimulus-response Compatibility (SRC) effect for positive stimuli (flowers) and a reversed SRC effect for negative stimuli (spiders), but the same data could be interpreted as showing faster responses when positive and negative stimuli were assigned to compatible and incompatible mappings, respectively, than when the assignment was opposite. Experiment 2 disentangled these interpretations, showing that valence did not influence a Spatial SRC effect (Simon effect) when task-set retrieval was unnecessary. Experiments 3 and 4 replaced keypress responses with joystick deflections that afforded appr...
-
principles for designing interfaces compatible with human information processing
International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 2016Co-Authors: Robert W. Proctor, Kimphuong L VuAbstract:Stimulus–response Compatibility has been a staple of human factors since the early 1950s, when it was established by Paul Fitts, one of the founders of human factors. The importance of maintaining Spatial Compatibility is indicated in textbooks, but maintaining Compatibility in design is not a simple task, because there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration. This article focuses on Spatial Compatibility and the more recently investigated affective Compatibility, highlighting their implications for human–computer interaction. An overview of other cognitive Compatibility principles and examples of their use in human–computer interaction is also provided. Advanced technology has increased the need for systematic consideration of Compatibility phenomena in user interface design, and the article ends with a summary of key points for designers.
-
Spatial Compatibility effects with unimanual and bimanual wheel rotation responses an homage to guiard 1983
Journal of Motor Behavior, 2013Co-Authors: Nicole M Murchison, Robert W. ProctorAbstract:ABSTRACT. Y. Guiard (1983) reported a prescient study of Compatibility effects in response times for clockwise/counterclockwise wheel rotations to stimuli in left/right locations. Left-right coding of responses predominated in his study, but some results suggested that unimanual versus bimanual operation was also a factor. The authors report 3 experiments directly examining whether there is a difference in Spatial Compatibility effects obtained with wheel-rotation responses executed bimanually or unimanually (with left or right hand). Adopting a right-to-clockwise or left-to-counterclockwise mapping was advantageous for top, side, and bottom hand placements. This benefit interacted neither with unimanual or bimanual responding nor with the response hand. The results confirm that the critical relation is between the wheel and stimulus position, and is not effector dependent. This finding is in agreement with results from studies using discrete keypress responses, emphasizing that Spatial coding of stimuli,...
-
Stimulus affect valence may influence mapping-rule selection but does not reverse the Spatial Compatibility effect: reinterpretation of Conde et al. (2011)
Psychology & Neuroscience, 2013Co-Authors: Robert W. ProctorAbstract:Conde et al. (2011) reported a finding that their article title characterized as "stimulus affective valence reverses the Spatial Compatibility effect." In their study, participants performed a choice-reaction task in which the stimulus was a soccer player from their "Favorite" team or from a "Rival" team, presented in a left or right location. The team signaled whether a Spatially compatible or incompatible keypress was to be made in response to the stimulus location. The Favorite team showed a benefit for the Spatially compatible response, but the Rival team showed a benefit for the Spatially incompatible response. In the present commentary, the data of Conde et al. are reorganized according to the two mixed-mapping conditions under which participants performed: Favorite→compatible/Rival→incompatible and Rival→compatible/Favorite→ incompatible. This reorganization shows the typical finding of no Spatial Compatibility effect for mixed mappings in both conditions but an overall advantage for the Favorite→compatible/Rival→incompatible mapping of teams to mapping rules. This Compatibility effect for team preference to mapping rule may be a consequence of positive and negative affect, although other accounts are possible. Regardless of its basis, that Compatibility effect did not modulate the Spatial Compatibility effect.
-
correlations between Spatial Compatibility effects are arrows more like locations or words
Psychological Research-psychologische Forschung, 2012Co-Authors: James D Miles, Robert W. ProctorAbstract:Responses are more efficient when their Spatial mappings with features of targets are compatible compared to when they are incompatible, even when those features are irrelevant to task performance. Currently, a debate exists as to whether Spatial information conveyed by different stimulus modes leads to qualitatively different Spatial representations. We investigated the relations between three of the most commonly used Spatial stimulus modes—arrows, locations, and location words—using correlations of Compatibility effects between each of these modes as well as Compatibility effects at different segments of their response time distributions. Our results show that when Spatial information is irrelevant to task performance (the Simon task), the Compatibility effects elicited by arrows and words are more strongly related with each other than with those of locations. However, when Spatial information is task relevant (the stimulus–response Compatibility SRC task), the Compatibility effects elicited by arrows and locations are more related, and both are less related to the effect elicited by words. We suggest that these changing relations between stimulus modes are strategically determined based on which Spatial coding technique for arrows is most advantageous to task performance. Furthermore, the varying relations between these Spatial Compatibility effects indicate that the Compatibility effect with one stimulus mode is not always predictive of the Compatibility effect in another mode.
Karl Christoph Klauer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The influence of the Japanese waving cat on the joint Spatial Compatibility effect: A replication and extension of Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, and Liepelt (2013).
PloS one, 2017Co-Authors: Lydia Puffe, Kerstin Dittrich, Karl Christoph KlauerAbstract:In a joint go/no-go Simon task, each of two participants is to respond to one of two non-Spatial stimulus features by means of a Spatially lateralized response. Stimulus position varies horizontally and responses are faster and more accurate when response side and stimulus position match (compatible trial) than when they mismatch (incompatible trial), defining the social Simon effect or joint Spatial Compatibility effect. This effect was originally explained in terms of action/task co-representation, assuming that the co-actor's action is automatically co-represented. Recent research by Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, and Liepelt (2013) challenged this account by demonstrating joint Spatial Compatibility effects in a task-setting in which non-social objects like a Japanese waving cat were present, but no real co-actor. They postulated that every sufficiently salient object induces joint Spatial Compatibility effects. However, what makes an object sufficiently salient is so far not well defined. To scrutinize this open question, the current study manipulated auditory and/or visual attention-attracting cues of a Japanese waving cat within an auditory (Experiment 1) and a visual joint go/no-go Simon task (Experiment 2). Results revealed that joint Spatial Compatibility effects only occurred in an auditory Simon task when the cat provided auditory cues while no joint Spatial Compatibility effects were found in a visual Simon task. This demonstrates that it is not the sufficiently salient object alone that leads to joint Spatial Compatibility effects but instead, a complex interaction between features of the object and the stimulus material of the joint go/no-go Simon task.
-
keys and seats Spatial response coding underlying the joint Spatial Compatibility effect
Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 2013Co-Authors: Kerstin Dittrich, Thomas Dolk, Annelie Rothewulf, Karl Christoph Klauer, Wolfgang PrinzAbstract:Spatial Compatibility effects (SCEs) are typically observed when participants have to execute Spatially defined responses to nonSpatial stimulus features (e.g., the color red or green) that randomly appear to the left and the right. Whereas a Spatial correspondence of stimulus and response features facilitates response execution, a noncorrespondence impairs task performance. Interestingly, the SCE is drastically reduced when a single participant responds to one stimulus feature (e.g., green) by operating only one response key (individual go/no-go task), whereas a full-blown SCE is observed when the task is distributed between two participants (joint go/no-go task). This joint SCE (a.k.a. the social Simon effect) has previously been explained by action/task co-representation, whereas alternative accounts ascribe joint SCEs to Spatial components inherent in joint go/no-go tasks that allow participants to code their responses Spatially. Although increasing evidence supports the idea that Spatial rather than social aspects are responsible for joint SCEs emerging, it is still unclear to which component(s) the Spatial coding refers to: the Spatial orientation of response keys, the Spatial orientation of responding agents, or both. By varying the Spatial orientation of the responding agents (Exp. 1) and of the response keys (Exp. 2), independent of the Spatial orientation of the stimuli, in the present study we found joint SCEs only when both the seating and the response key alignment matched the stimulus alignment. These results provide evidence that Spatial response coding refers not only to the response key arrangement, but also to the—often neglected—Spatial orientation of the responding agents.
-
Increased Spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of Spatial Compatibility effects.
Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 2012Co-Authors: Kerstin Dittrich, Annelie Rothe, Karl Christoph KlauerAbstract:A Spatial Compatibility effect (SCE) is typically observed in forced two-choice tasks in which a Spatially defined response (e.g., pressing a left vs. a right key) has to be executed to a nonSpatial feature of a stimulus (e.g., discriminating red from green) that is additionally connoted by a Spatial feature (e.g., the stimulus points to the left or the right). Responses are faster and more accurate when the response side and the Spatial stimulus feature are compatible than when they are incompatible. Previous research has demonstrated that SCEs are diminished when stimuli from only one response category are responded to in individual go/no-go tasks, whereas SCEs reemerge when two participants work jointly on two complementary, individual go/no-go tasks in a joint go/no-go task setting. This social Simon effect has been considered evidence for shared task representations. We show that SCEs emerge in individual go/no-go tasks when the Spatial dimension is made more salient, whereas SCEs are eliminated in joint go/no-go tasks when the Spatial dimension is made less salient. These findings are consistent with an account of social Simon effects in terms of Spatial response coding, whereas they are inconsistent with an account of shared task representations. The relevance of social factors for Spatial response coding is discussed.
Wolfgang Prinz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
keys and seats Spatial response coding underlying the joint Spatial Compatibility effect
Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 2013Co-Authors: Kerstin Dittrich, Thomas Dolk, Annelie Rothewulf, Karl Christoph Klauer, Wolfgang PrinzAbstract:Spatial Compatibility effects (SCEs) are typically observed when participants have to execute Spatially defined responses to nonSpatial stimulus features (e.g., the color red or green) that randomly appear to the left and the right. Whereas a Spatial correspondence of stimulus and response features facilitates response execution, a noncorrespondence impairs task performance. Interestingly, the SCE is drastically reduced when a single participant responds to one stimulus feature (e.g., green) by operating only one response key (individual go/no-go task), whereas a full-blown SCE is observed when the task is distributed between two participants (joint go/no-go task). This joint SCE (a.k.a. the social Simon effect) has previously been explained by action/task co-representation, whereas alternative accounts ascribe joint SCEs to Spatial components inherent in joint go/no-go tasks that allow participants to code their responses Spatially. Although increasing evidence supports the idea that Spatial rather than social aspects are responsible for joint SCEs emerging, it is still unclear to which component(s) the Spatial coding refers to: the Spatial orientation of response keys, the Spatial orientation of responding agents, or both. By varying the Spatial orientation of the responding agents (Exp. 1) and of the response keys (Exp. 2), independent of the Spatial orientation of the stimuli, in the present study we found joint SCEs only when both the seating and the response key alignment matched the stimulus alignment. These results provide evidence that Spatial response coding refers not only to the response key arrangement, but also to the—often neglected—Spatial orientation of the responding agents.
-
motor execution affects action prediction
Brain and Cognition, 2011Co-Authors: Anne Springer, Simone Brandstadter, Roman Liepelt, Teresa Birngruber, Franz Mechsner, Martin A. Giese, Wolfgang PrinzAbstract:Previous studies provided evidence of the claim that the prediction of occluded action involves real-time simulation. We report two experiments that aimed to study how real-time simulation is affected by simultaneous action execution under conditions of full, partial or no overlap between observed and executed actions. This overlap was analysed by comparing the body sides and the movement kinematics involved in the observed and the executed action. While performing actions, participants observed point-light (PL) actions that were interrupted by an occluder, followed by a test pose. The task was to judge whether the test pose depicted a continuation of the occluded action in the same depth angle. Using a paradigm proposed by Graf et al., we independently manipulated the duration of the occluder and the temporal advance of the test pose relative to occlusion onset (occluder time and pose time, respectively). This paradigm allows the assessment of real-time simulation, based on prediction performance across different occluder time/pose time combinations (i.e., improved task performance with decreasing time distance between occluder time and pose time is taken to reflect real-time simulation). The PL actor could be perceived as from the front or back, as indicated by task instructions. In Experiment 1 (front view instructions), evidence of action simulation was obtained for partial overlap (i.e., observed and performed action corresponded either in body side or movement kinematics), but not for full or no overlap conditions. The same pattern was obtained in Experiment 2 (back view instructions), ruling out a Spatial Compatibility explanation for the real-time pattern observed. Our results suggest that motor processes affect action prediction and real-time simulation. The strength of their impact varies as a function of the overlap between observed and executed actions.
-
movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task
Acta Psychologica, 2001Co-Authors: Marcel Brass, Harold Bekkering, Wolfgang PrinzAbstract:The present study was designed to examine the hypothesis that stimulus-response arrangements with high ideomotor Compatibility lead to substantial Compatibility effects even in simple response tasks. In Experiment 1, participants executed pre-instructed finger movements in response to compatible and incompatible finger movements. A pronounced reaction time advantage was found for compatible as compared to incompatible trials. Experiment 2 revealed a much smaller Compatibility effect for less ideomotor-compatible object movements compared to finger movements. Experiment 3 presented normal stimuli (hand upright) and flipped stimuli (hand upside-down). Two components were found to contribute to the Compatibility effect, a dynamic Spatial Compatibility component (related to movement directions) and an ideomotor component (related to movement types). The implications of these results for theories about stimulus-response Compatibility (SRC) as well as for theories about imitation are discussed.
-
perception and action planning
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1997Co-Authors: Wolfgang PrinzAbstract:A new framework for the understanding of functional relationships between perception and action is discussed. According to this framework, perceived events and planned actions share a common representational domain (common-coding approach). Supporting evidence from two classes of experimental paradigms is presented: induction paradigms and interference paradigms. Induction paradigms study how certain stimuli induce certain actions by virtue of similarity. Evidence from two types of induction tasks is reviewed: sensorimotor synchronisation and Spatial Compatibility tasks. Interference paradigms study the mutual interference between the perception of ongoing events and the preparation and control of ongoing action. Again, evidence from two types of such tasks is reviewed, implying interference in either direction. It is concluded that the evidence available supports the common coding principle. A further general principle emerging from these studies is the action effect principle that is, the principle that...
Kerstin Dittrich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The influence of the Japanese waving cat on the joint Spatial Compatibility effect: A replication and extension of Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, and Liepelt (2013).
PloS one, 2017Co-Authors: Lydia Puffe, Kerstin Dittrich, Karl Christoph KlauerAbstract:In a joint go/no-go Simon task, each of two participants is to respond to one of two non-Spatial stimulus features by means of a Spatially lateralized response. Stimulus position varies horizontally and responses are faster and more accurate when response side and stimulus position match (compatible trial) than when they mismatch (incompatible trial), defining the social Simon effect or joint Spatial Compatibility effect. This effect was originally explained in terms of action/task co-representation, assuming that the co-actor's action is automatically co-represented. Recent research by Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, and Liepelt (2013) challenged this account by demonstrating joint Spatial Compatibility effects in a task-setting in which non-social objects like a Japanese waving cat were present, but no real co-actor. They postulated that every sufficiently salient object induces joint Spatial Compatibility effects. However, what makes an object sufficiently salient is so far not well defined. To scrutinize this open question, the current study manipulated auditory and/or visual attention-attracting cues of a Japanese waving cat within an auditory (Experiment 1) and a visual joint go/no-go Simon task (Experiment 2). Results revealed that joint Spatial Compatibility effects only occurred in an auditory Simon task when the cat provided auditory cues while no joint Spatial Compatibility effects were found in a visual Simon task. This demonstrates that it is not the sufficiently salient object alone that leads to joint Spatial Compatibility effects but instead, a complex interaction between features of the object and the stimulus material of the joint go/no-go Simon task.
-
keys and seats Spatial response coding underlying the joint Spatial Compatibility effect
Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 2013Co-Authors: Kerstin Dittrich, Thomas Dolk, Annelie Rothewulf, Karl Christoph Klauer, Wolfgang PrinzAbstract:Spatial Compatibility effects (SCEs) are typically observed when participants have to execute Spatially defined responses to nonSpatial stimulus features (e.g., the color red or green) that randomly appear to the left and the right. Whereas a Spatial correspondence of stimulus and response features facilitates response execution, a noncorrespondence impairs task performance. Interestingly, the SCE is drastically reduced when a single participant responds to one stimulus feature (e.g., green) by operating only one response key (individual go/no-go task), whereas a full-blown SCE is observed when the task is distributed between two participants (joint go/no-go task). This joint SCE (a.k.a. the social Simon effect) has previously been explained by action/task co-representation, whereas alternative accounts ascribe joint SCEs to Spatial components inherent in joint go/no-go tasks that allow participants to code their responses Spatially. Although increasing evidence supports the idea that Spatial rather than social aspects are responsible for joint SCEs emerging, it is still unclear to which component(s) the Spatial coding refers to: the Spatial orientation of response keys, the Spatial orientation of responding agents, or both. By varying the Spatial orientation of the responding agents (Exp. 1) and of the response keys (Exp. 2), independent of the Spatial orientation of the stimuli, in the present study we found joint SCEs only when both the seating and the response key alignment matched the stimulus alignment. These results provide evidence that Spatial response coding refers not only to the response key arrangement, but also to the—often neglected—Spatial orientation of the responding agents.
-
Increased Spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of Spatial Compatibility effects.
Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 2012Co-Authors: Kerstin Dittrich, Annelie Rothe, Karl Christoph KlauerAbstract:A Spatial Compatibility effect (SCE) is typically observed in forced two-choice tasks in which a Spatially defined response (e.g., pressing a left vs. a right key) has to be executed to a nonSpatial feature of a stimulus (e.g., discriminating red from green) that is additionally connoted by a Spatial feature (e.g., the stimulus points to the left or the right). Responses are faster and more accurate when the response side and the Spatial stimulus feature are compatible than when they are incompatible. Previous research has demonstrated that SCEs are diminished when stimuli from only one response category are responded to in individual go/no-go tasks, whereas SCEs reemerge when two participants work jointly on two complementary, individual go/no-go tasks in a joint go/no-go task setting. This social Simon effect has been considered evidence for shared task representations. We show that SCEs emerge in individual go/no-go tasks when the Spatial dimension is made more salient, whereas SCEs are eliminated in joint go/no-go tasks when the Spatial dimension is made less salient. These findings are consistent with an account of social Simon effects in terms of Spatial response coding, whereas they are inconsistent with an account of shared task representations. The relevance of social factors for Spatial response coding is discussed.
Alan H S Chan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tracking and discrete dual task performance for different visual Spatial stimulus response mappings with focal and ambient vision
Applied Ergonomics, 2018Co-Authors: Steve N H Tsang, Alan H S ChanAbstract:Abstract The effect of Spatial Compatibility for various display-control configurations on human performance was studied with a dual-task paradigm using a tracking task and a discrete response task. Degradation of performance on both tasks within the visual modality was observed and was considered to be most likely due to resource competition resulting from simultaneous task operation. It was found that the more complicated the mapping for the discrete Spatial Compatibility response task, the more severe the interference with the tracking task. Although performance on both the tracking and Spatial response tasks was impaired, the magnitude of impairment was not as great as expected, implying that focal and ambient vision required for the tracking task and Spatial task, respectively, might be deployed, at least partly, from separate resources. Participants here seemed to successfully use focal vision for tracking and ambient vision for identifying signal lights concurrently, reducing the expected keen competition for visual resources.
-
hand and foot controlled dual tracking task performance together with a discrete Spatial stimulus response Compatibility task
International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 2017Co-Authors: X Kang Q Stefanie, Steve N H Tsang, Alan H S Chan, S L LiuAbstract:ABSTRACTA multi-task paradigm involving dual tracking for hand and foot and a discrete choice response task with signals presented in different modalities (visual–visual versus auditory–visual) was used to study the effect of Spatial Compatibility for various display-control configurations on performance. Delay in multi-task processing was observed when more than one task demanded the same cognitive resources for processing. Compatibility between stimuli and responses for the discrete response task was found to significantly affect the amount of delay in overall multi-task performance. When two fingers of the left hand were used for responses in the Spatial Compatibility task, there was an absence of salient frame of reference in the horizontal right–left dimension. Compared with the visual–visual signal presentation, the auditory–visual signal presentation resulted in significantly higher hand-tracking errors, response times, and response errors, implying that mixed-modality stimulus presentation for a d...
-
effects of stimulus orientation grouping and alignment on Spatial s r Compatibility
International Conference on Human Interface and Management of Information, 2013Co-Authors: Steve N H Tsang, Ken W L Chan, Alan H S ChanAbstract:Effects of stimulus orientation, grouping, and alignment on Spatial Compatibility were investigated in this study. With eight possible stimulus locations mapped to two response keys, the parallel orientation was found to be responded to faster than the orthogonal orientation. As to the grouping effect, responses for the split stimulus array were superior to that for the continuous one, which seems to be the result of better reference frames and clearer distinction between visual signals. Comparing the single relative position (Left-Right-Left-Right/Up-Down-Up-Down) alignment to the double one (Left-Left-Right-Right/Up-Up-Down-Down), no significant difference in RT was noted, but the single relative position alignment was less prone to error responses than the double one. The effect of stimulus grouping and alignment interacted significantly that the single relative position alignment with split grouping was responded to much faster than that with continuous grouping. Also, the significant interaction effect of orientation and S-R Compatibility showed that the up-left and down-right stimulus-response mappings were better than the mappings the other way round.
-
a comparison of semantic and Spatial stimulus response Compatibility effects for human machine interface design
European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2012Co-Authors: Alan H S ChanAbstract:The effects of semantic and Spatial stimulus-response (S-R) Compatibility were examined and compared with the use of an auditory choice reaction task paradigm in this experiment. Twenty-two participants responded to speech and non-speech signals presented at the left and right ears and were asked to respond to different conditions of congruence and incongruence of semantic and location codes of signals and responses. The results showed that participants processed the non-speech signals faster than the speech signals. The presence of both semantic and Spatial Compatibility for signals and responses was found to improve reaction time and response accuracy. Compared with Spatial Compatibility, the effect of semantic Compatibility influences human performance more. Based on the results, practical ergonomics recommendations for enhanced human-machine interfaces were formulated which help industrial designers to improve overall system performance in machinery and equipment design.
-
Spatial stimulus response Compatibility for hand and foot controls with vertical plane visual signals
Displays, 2011Co-Authors: Ken W L Chan, Alan H S ChanAbstract:Abstract Most of the previous studies on Spatial S–R Compatibility have been limited to the use of hand controls with visual signals on horizontal displays. This study examined the performance of 38 right-handed and right-footed participants in a four choice Spatial stimulus–response (S–R) Compatibility task with the use of hand and foot controls to respond to visual signals in a vertical plane. The hand and foot dominance of participants was assessed with the Lateral Preference Inventory of Coren (1993). There was a strong Spatial S–R Compatibility effect in the task revealed by the significant interaction of visual signal position and response key position. The Spatial Compatibility effect for the above/below dimension was found to be significantly stronger than for the right/left dimension, and no prevalence of right/left over above/below Spatial cue was observed in this study. In addition, S–R Compatibility produced larger magnitude effect for the top signals compared with bottom ones. As expected, participants responded faster with hands than with feet, and responses from the right foot were faster than those from the left foot for the right-handed/footed participants tested here. The results of this study provide vital information for designing more effective human–machine interfaces with hand and foot controls interacting with vertical plane visual signals.