Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Negative Priming: Implications for Response Selection

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lenore E. Read ◽  
Robert W. Proctor
Keyword(s):  
Negative Priming ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility

scholarly journals Negative priming and stimulus-response compatibility

1996 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 510-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ling-po Shiu ◽  
Sylvan Kornblum
Keyword(s):  
Negative Priming ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility

Choice and stimulus–response compatibility affect duration of response selection

1999 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Dassonville ◽  
Scott M Lewis ◽  
Heather E Foster ◽  
James Ashe
Keyword(s):  
Response Selection ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility

scholarly journals Proprioception and Stimulus-Response Compatibility

2000 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles J. Worringham ◽  
Graham K. Kerr
Keyword(s):  
Response Selection ◽  
Index Finger ◽  
Left Index Finger ◽  
Neural Activation ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Skin Contact ◽  
Automatic Activation ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility

Sixteen subjects pressed a left or right key in response to lateralized visual stimuli, in uncrossed (left index finger on left key, right finger on right key) and crossed conditions (left finger on right key and vice versa), with varying finger separations. Visual, tactile, or “efference copy” cues about relative finger positions were unavailable. Subjects had to press the key on the same side as (compatible group) or opposite side to the stimulus (incompatible group). Separate proprioceptive judgements of the relative finger positions were obtained. Findings of an overall reaction time (RT) advantage for compatible instructions and for uncrossed hands were replicated. With decreasing finger separation the RT advantage for compatible instructions decreased, and the probability of responding with either hand increased. The compatibility effect disappeared completely at the 6-cm crossed position, not at the position that was hardest to judge proprioceptively. This suggests that two forms of neural activation are summed: automatic activation of the anatomically same-side limb, and an integrated, rule-based activation. The results further demonstrate that independent proprioceptive cues from each limb, unassociated with skin contact between the limbs, can mediate the determination of relative position for response selection in stimulus-response compatibility tasks.

scholarly journals Affective Influences without Approach-Avoidance Actions: On the Congruence Between Valence and Stimulus-Response Mappings

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Jing Chen
Keyword(s):  
Response Selection ◽  
Affective Processing ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Affective Valence ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatial Stimulus ◽  
Stimulus Valence ◽  
Approach Avoidance ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility ◽  
Affective Influences

The valence of stimuli can influence performance in the spatial stimulus-response compatibility task, but this observation could arise from the process of selecting responses or selecting stimulus-response mappings. The response-selection account proposes that spatial compatible and incompatible keypress responses serve as approaching and avoiding actions to the target. The mapping-selection account suggests that there is congruence between stimulus valence and stimulus-response mappings; positive-compatible/negative-incompatible is more congruent than negative-compatible/positive-incompatible. Whereas affective valence was part of the target stimuli to which participants responded in the previous studies, the present study isolated affective valence from the target by presenting an additional mapping cue separately from the target, so that spatially compatible and incompatible keypress responses could no longer serve as approaching and avoiding actions to valenced target stimuli. The present results revealed that responses were still faster when positive and negative mapping cues were assigned to the spatially compatible and incompatible mappings than when the assignment was reversed. The finding supports the mapping-selection account, indicating that positive and negative cues influence performance without approach/avoidance actions to valenced stimuli. The experiment provides important implications as to how tasks are represented and are dependent on affective processing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document