scholarly journals A Direct Comparison of Spatial Attention and Stimulus–Response Compatibility between Mice and Humans

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Ulf H. Schnabel ◽  
Tobias Van der Bijl ◽  
Pieter R. Roelfsema ◽  
Jeannette A. M. Lorteije
Keyword(s):  
Visual Attention ◽  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
Higher Cognitive Functions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Speed Accuracy

Mice are becoming an increasingly popular model for investigating the neural substrates of visual processing and higher cognitive functions. To validate the translation of mouse visual attention and sensorimotor processing to humans, we compared their performance in the same visual task. Mice and human participants judged the orientation of a grating presented on either the right or left side in the visual field. To induce shifts of spatial attention, we varied the stimulus probability on each side. As expected, human participants showed faster RTs and a higher accuracy for the side with a higher probability, a well-established effect of visual attention. The attentional effect was only present in mice when their response was slow. Although the task demanded a judgment of grating orientation, the accuracy of the mice was strongly affected by whether the side of the stimulus corresponded to the side of the behavioral response. This stimulus–response compatibility (Simon) effect was much weaker in humans and only significant for their fastest responses. Both species exhibited a speed–accuracy trade-off in their responses, because slower responses were more accurate than faster responses. We found that mice typically respond very fast, which contributes to the stronger stimulus–response compatibility and weaker attentional effects, which were only apparent in the trials with slowest responses. Humans responded slower and had stronger attentional effects, combined with a weak influence of stimulus–response compatibility, which was only apparent in trials with fast responses. We conclude that spatial attention and stimulus–response compatibility influence the responses of humans and mice but that strategy differences between species determine the dominance of these effects.

Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Position of the Hands: Nonadditive Effects

1998 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 843-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aline Ghozlan
Keyword(s):  
Target Word ◽  
Visual Target ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Factorial Combination ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility ◽  
The Right ◽  
Nonadditive Effects

An experiment was conducted using a two-choice stimulus-response compatibility task factorially combined with position of the hands. Subjects responded to a visual target word ( Left or Right) by pressing on the left or the right key depending on the compatible or incompatible assignment and performed the task with the hands uncrossed or crossed. The effects of Stimulus-response compatibility and Position of hands were not additive. Moreover, no effect of compatibility occurred in the crossed-band condition. These findings are consistent with the predictions derived from a recent hypothesis assuming that in some particular experimental conditions the presentation of the stimulus will activate two automatic responses. The two stimulus-response compatibility mappings related to these two automatic responses have been shown to be positively or negatively correlated depending on the factorial combination of Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Position of Hands. As a consequence the effects of the two factors theoretically cannot be additive. This assumption accounts for the present results.

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.

The Role of Feedback in Learning Spatially Incompatible Choice Reaction Tasks: Does it Have one?

1993 ◽  
Vol 37 (19) ◽  
pp. 1320-1324
Author(s):  
Addie Dutta ◽  
Robert W. Proctor
Keyword(s):  
Compatibility Effect ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Response Deadline ◽  
Extended Practice ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Speed Accuracy

Stimulus-response compatibility effects have been shown to persist even after extended practice. In the present study, two experiments were conducted to see if the effects persist when knowledge of results that allows subjects to set performance goals is provided. In the first experiment, summary feedback about mean accuracy and mean reaction time was provided after each block of 40 trials of practice in a two-choice spatial compatibility task. Subjects practiced the task for 2,400 trials, yet the compatibility effect was not eliminated. Compared to previous experiments, reaction times were faster overall, but the degree of change was the same for both compatible and incompatible assignments. In the second experiment, a response deadline was imposed on each trial. If the subject did not respond within the time limit, which was reduced as the experiment progressed, auditory feedback was presented. Summary feedback was also presented as in Experiment 1. Again, 2,400 trials of practice reduced but did not eliminate the compatibility effect. The greater reduction in the difference in reaction times for compatible and incompatible assignments, relative to other experiments, could be attributed to speed-accuracy tradeoff. The results indicate that the persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice is not due to poorer motivation to perform with the incompatible assignment. The results suggest that training will be insufficient to overcome difficulties in performance resulting from spatially incompatible assignments.

Effects of Response Eccentricity and Relative Position on Orthogonal Stimulus—Response Compatibility with Joystick and Keypress Responses

2003 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Proctor ◽  
Yang Seok Cho
Keyword(s):  
Relative Position ◽  
Relative Location ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Active Response ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Eccentricity Effect ◽  
Response Alternatives ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility ◽  
Salient Features ◽  
The Right

When unimanual left—right movement responses are made to up—down stimuli, performance is better with the up—right/down—left mapping when responding in the right hemispace and with the up—left/down—right mapping when responding in the left hemispace. We evaluated whether this response eccentricity effect is explained best in terms of rotational properties of the hand (the end-state comfort hypothesis) or asymmetric coding of the stimulus and response alternatives (the salient features coding hypothesis). Experiment 1 showed that bimanual keypresses yield a response eccentricity effect similar to that obtained with unimanual movement responses. In Experiment 2, an inactive response apparatus was placed to the left or right of the active response apparatus to provide a referent. For half of the participants, the active and inactive apparatuses were joysticks, and for half they were response boxes with keys. For both response types, an up—right/down—left advantage was evident when the relative position of the active response apparatus was right but not when it was left. That bimanual keypresses yield similar eccentricity and relative location effects to those for unimanual movements is predicted by the salient features coding perspective but not by the end-state comfort hypothesis.

Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Videogame Performance

1995 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 691-698
Author(s):  
R. Michael Bronw ◽  
Debbie Delong ◽  
Norma L. Brown ◽  
Kathy Reid
Keyword(s):  
Visual Target ◽  
Moving Target ◽  
Response Compatibility ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Response Device ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Stimulus Response Compatibility ◽  
Game Condition ◽  
The Right

We investigated the role of stimulus-response compatibility in influencing manual reactions to a moving visual target in a videogame (pong). 40 right-handed university men were assigned randomly to one of two experimental conditions, the normal game condition or a reverse control condition in which the response device on the right controls the left game paddle and the device on the left controls the right paddle. Subjects in the normal condition performed marginally better playing pong when seated on the right than when seated on the left, consistent with earlier findings. However, subjects in the reverse control condition showed the reverse effect, a leftside advantage. These findings suggest that compatibility between location of the moving target (the ball) and either handedness or hand used to respond may have been responsible for the right-side advantage observed in the normal-game condition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document