Visual Motion Induces Effector Movement

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 280-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Nattkemper
Keyword(s):  
Visual Motion ◽  
Spatial Location ◽  
Perceptual Content ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatial Stimulus ◽  
Spatial Properties ◽  
Moving Stimulus ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hand Response

A left-hand response to a left-hand stimulus is faster than a right-hand response to the same stimulus, even when spatial location is irrelevant to the task at hand. The existence of this spatial stimulus-response correspondence effect suggests that spatial properties of actions to be performed can be pre-specified by spatial properties of perceived events, so that actions are induced by perceptual content. If this view is correct, one should be able to show that not only spatial positions of actions can be pre-specified by properties of perceived events, but other features of actions as well. Specifically, I attempt to show that the direction of a to-be-executed movement can be specified by the direction of a moving stimulus. To study this question a variant of the Simon paradigm was developed: subjects were required to monitor a spot-like stimulus moving from left to right or from right to left on a display. At some point in time the spot would change its colour (from white to blue or red) and the subject had to respond differentially to the respective colour. Two aspects of this situation were varied. First, the type of the action-relevant signal was varied: it could either be a dynamic moving signal or a static non-moving one. Second, the type of response was varied: subjects were required to respond to the colour either with a dynamic response (moving a stylus to the left or right) or with a more static response (pressing a button on the left or on the right).

Stimulus–Response Compatibility for Vertically Oriented Stimuli and Horizontally Oriented Responses: Evidence for Spatial Coding

1995 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Weeks ◽  
Robert W. Proctor ◽  
Brad Beyak
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Coding ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Response Location ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Response Sets ◽  
Response Switch ◽  
Oriented Stimulus ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Active Switch ◽  
The Right

It has previously been shown that, when stimuli positioned above or below a central fixation point (“up” and “down” stimuli) are assigned to left and right responses, the stimulus–response mapping up-left/down-right is more compatible than the mapping up-right/down-left for responses executed by the left hand in the left hemispace, but this relation is reversed for responses executed by the right hand in the right hemispace. In Experiment 1, each hand responded at locations in both hemispaces to dissociate the influence of hand identity from response location, and response location was found to be the determinant of relative compatibility. In Experiment 2 responses were made at the sagittal midline, and an inactive response switch was placed to the left or right to induce coding of the active switch as right or left, respectively. This manipulation of relative location had an effect similar to, although of lesser magnitude than, that produced by physically changing location of the response switch in Experiment 1. It is argued that these results are counter to predictions of a movement-preference account and consistent with the view that spatial coding underlies compatibility effects for orthogonally oriented stimulus and response sets.

Influence of Spatial Mapping on Manual Aiming Asymmetries

1998 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 967-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian K. V. Maraj ◽  
Digby Elliott ◽  
James Lyons ◽  
Eric A. Roy ◽  
Tamara Winchester
Keyword(s):  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Movement Time ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Right Hand ◽  
Movement Error ◽  
Computer Mouse ◽  
Spatial Translation ◽  
Different Diameters ◽  
The Right

Two experiments were conducted to examine manual asymmetries in a one-dimensional aiming task. In Exp. 1, 10 right-handed adults slid a computer mouse 13 cm on a graphics tablet with both the right and left hands to targets of 3 different diameters. Under these conditions, the movement time for the right hand was significantly faster as expected. In Exp. 2, subjects performed similar movements to move a cursor 13 cm on a computer monitor. Thus the study was identical except the stimulus-response mapping was indirect. In this situation, there were no significant differences for either movement time or movement error between hands despite these performance measures indicating that target aiming was more difficult in Exp. 2. Because increases in task difficulty generally result in a greater advantage for the right hand, as indicated by Todor & Smiley, 1985, the present studies suggest that superiority of the right hand in aiming tasks may be diminished when spatial translation is required. Perhaps the spatial translation requires greater involvement of the right hemisphere, a process associated with manual advantage for the left hand, previously suggested by Roy and MacKenzie.

Further Evidence that the SNARC Effect is Processed Along a Dual-Route Architecture

2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim Gevers ◽  
Elie Ratinckx ◽  
Wouter De Baene ◽  
Wim Fias
Keyword(s):  
Number Line ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Snarc Effect ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Right Hand ◽  
Intermediate Response ◽  
Dual Route ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hand Response ◽  
Processing Architecture

In a binary response setting, it has been frequently observed that small numbers are reacted to faster with the left hand and large numbers with the right hand (i. e., the SNARC-effect) which reflects the spatial left-right orientation of the mental number line ( Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993 ). In line with the work of Keus and Schwarz (in press ), we investigated the locus of the conflict in the SNARC effect in a parity judgment task with the Arabic numerals 1, 2, 8, or 9. Differences between compatible (left-hand response to 1 or 2 and right-hand response to 8 and 9) and incompatible SNARC conditions (left-hand response to 8 or 9 and right-hand response to 1 or 2) were observed in the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) but not in the peak latency of the P300. In accordance with Keus and colleagues ( Keus, Jenks, & Schwarz, 2005 ), we argue that the locus of the conflict is situated at intermediate response-related stages. However, instead of adopting a single-route processing architecture, a dual route account is proposed as the underlying processing architecture explaining the SNARC effect.

Space and Motion Stimulus-Response Correspondence (SRC) Effects in a Single Task

2016 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 297-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Styrkowiec
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Times ◽  
Distribution Analysis ◽  
Response Position ◽  
Stimulus Motion ◽  
Single Task ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatial Stimulus ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Delta Plots ◽  
The Right

Abstract. Previous research indicated that congruency between stimulus location and response position (spatial stimulus-response correspondence [SRC]) and stimulus motion and response movement congruency (motion SRC) are distinct SRC phenomena. This study further explored this issue and tested whether these two SRC effects are independent. This was conducted by investigating these two SRC effects in a single task. A stimulus with leftward or rightward motion was presented on the left or the right side of the screen and the participant had to move the joysticks held with the left and right hands leftward or rightward in response to the stimulus color. In this setting, the stimulus and response shared two types of correspondence: spatial and motion. The results demonstrated that two SRC effects occurred and interacted (interaction evident only in reaction times [RTs]). RT distribution analysis and accuracy delta plots for each SRC effect indicated that spatial and motion SRC are distinct phenomena based on different processes.

Stimulus-Response Compatibility and the Motor System

1982 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Bauer ◽  
Jeff Miller
Keyword(s):  
Motor System ◽  
Stimulus Array ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Right Hand ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility ◽  
The Right ◽  
Reverse Mapping

Three experiments examined stimulus-response (S—R) compatibility relationships with the stimulus array perpendicular to the response array. In Experiments I and II, stimuli indicated right and left positions, while the responses were movements up and down. The mapping right/up and left/down was preferable for the right hand, but the reverse mapping was preferable for the left hand. In Experiment III, the stimuli indicated up and down positions, while the responses were movements to the right and left. In this case, the mapping up/left and down/right was preferable for the right hand, and the reverse mapping was preferable for the left hand. The results are most easily explained by assuming that counterclockwise rotational movements are preferable for the right hand, while clockwise is preferable for the left. These preferences are manifest through combinations of implicit movements towards the stimulus and explicit movements towards the response key. This principle is shown to provide a simpler explanation for some previously reported S-R compatibility effects.

Effects of Certainty and Uncertainty of Stimulus-Response Correspondence on Auditory Reaction Times

1977 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 311-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Puleo ◽  
Paul E. Sheldon
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Complex Reaction ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Auditory Cue ◽  
Male College ◽  
Initial Tendency ◽  
The Right

Complex reaction time (RT) was measured for a task in which a discriminative auditory cue designated whether the right or left hand was to be used in responding. Facilitation of monaural RT compared to binaural RT occurred on trials in which both (1) the ear stimulated corresponded to the hand specified for response and (2) each of 20 male college students had received a prior signal signifying that stimulus-response correspondence would occur on the trial. RT was slower for monaural than binaural input when the monaural stimulus was applied to the ear contralateral to the hand designated by the tonal cue regardless of a prior signal signifying that stimulus-response noncorrespondence would occur on the trial. These slower RTs were attributed to an inability of subjects to inhibit their initial tendency to react toward the source of stimulation.

Hemispheric Asymmetry: A Signal Detection Analysis

1980 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 599-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. Shefsky ◽  
Herbert H. Stenson ◽  
Leon K. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Hemispheric Asymmetry ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Perceptual Sensitivity ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Detection Analysis ◽  
Simple Motor ◽  
Visual Hemifield ◽  
Signal Detection Analysis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hand Response

Subjects were asked to indicate, by a simple motor response, the presence or absence of a predesignated target letter in unilaterally presented consonant trigrams. Perceptual sensitivity (d′) was significantly greater in the right visual hemifield and did not depend upon hand of response. Reaction times were slightly higher in the left hemifield and for the left hand. Response bias (β) did not differ between hemifields. Models of perceptual asymmetry as a consequence of information loss transcallosally are weakened by the results.

Frustration, Preference and Behavioural Contrast

1967 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. M. Bloomfield
Keyword(s):  
Contrast Effect ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Previous Experiment ◽  
Variable Interval ◽  
The Other ◽  
Similar Increase ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Right Hand ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hand Response

Pigeons' pecks on both a red (left-hand) and a striped (right-hand) response key were reinforced on a concurrent variable-interval 2-min. schedule until the proportion of responses given to each key had stabilized. In alternate sessions, the right-hand key was covered, while responding to a green stimulus on the left-hand key was reinforced on variable-interval 1-min. When responding to green was later extinguished, more responses were made to the striped key in reinforcement sessions, although the rate of responding to the other, red key increased. Replacing extinction during green by reinforcement returned the preference and the response rates to their previous levels. These results are compared with a previous experiment in which the striped key was not present, where a similar increase in response rate to red was observed after extinction on green. The shift in preference coupled with the usual contrast effect in the present experiment supports an interpretation of behavioural contrast in terms of the frustrative effects of extinction.

Editorial Note

1946 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Keyword(s):  
Editorial Note ◽  
Speech Sounds ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Hand Column ◽  
Right Hand ◽  
Infant Speech ◽  
The Right

In the article “Infant Speech Sounds and Intelligence” by Orvis C. Irwin and Han Piao Chen, in the December 1945 issue of the Journal, the paragraph which begins at the bottom of the left hand column on page 295 should have been placed immediately below the first paragraph at the top of the right hand column on page 296. To the authors we express our sincere apologies.

Is the Future the Right Time?

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Ouellet ◽  
Julio Santiago ◽  
Ziv Israeli ◽  
Shai Gabay
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Task ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Opposite Pattern ◽  
Time Line ◽  
Temporal Reference ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Reading Direction ◽  
Mental Time Line ◽  
The Right

Spanish and English speakers tend to conceptualize time as running from left to right along a mental line. Previous research suggests that this representational strategy arises from the participants’ exposure to a left-to-right writing system. However, direct evidence supporting this assertion suffers from several limitations and relies only on the visual modality. This study subjected to a direct test the reading hypothesis using an auditory task. Participants from two groups (Spanish and Hebrew) differing in the directionality of their orthographic system had to discriminate temporal reference (past or future) of verbs and adverbs (referring to either past or future) auditorily presented to either the left or right ear by pressing a left or a right key. Spanish participants were faster responding to past words with the left hand and to future words with the right hand, whereas Hebrew participants showed the opposite pattern. Our results demonstrate that the left-right mapping of time is not restricted to the visual modality and that the direction of reading accounts for the preferred directionality of the mental time line. These results are discussed in the context of a possible mechanism underlying the effects of reading direction on highly abstract conceptual representations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document