Negative affordance effect: automatic response inhibition triggered by handle orientation of non-target object

Habituated response tendency associated with affordance of an object is automatically inhibited if this affordance cue is extracted from a non-target object. This study presents two go/no-go experiments investigating whether this response control operates in response selection processes and whether it is linked to conflict-monitoring mechanisms. In the first experiment, the participants performed responses with one hand, and in the second experiment, with two hands. In addition, both experiments consisted of two blocks with varying frequency of go conditions (25%-go vs. 75%-go). The non-target-related response inhibition effect was only observed in Experiment 2 when the task required selecting between two hands. Additionally, the results did not reveal patterns typically related to conflict monitoring when go-frequency is manipulated and when a stimulus–response compatibility effect is examined relative to congruency condition of the previous trial. The study shows that the non-target-related response inhibition assists hand selection and is relatively resistant to conflict-monitoring processes.

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

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.

Sense and Sensitivity – Using Spatial Response-Compatibility Effects to Investigate Ambiguous Word Meaning

We investigated sensitivity for the vertical meaning of the German particle ab by means of stimulus–response compatibility effects. In German, the particle ab is ambiguous and can take on a vertical meaning (downward) as in Auf und Ab (engl. up and down), but it can also take on nonvertical or nonspatial meanings as in Ab und An (engl. from time to time). We show that the particle ab only creates a spatial compatibility effect relative to the German particle auf (Experiment 1) but not relative to the particle an (Experiment 2). Furthermore, as participants executed upward versus downward responses in both Experiments 1 and 2, the mere vertical antagonism of the responses was insufficient to instill a verticality-based compatibility effect. In addition, the compatibility effect was restricted to the transparent version of the particle. If a letter sequence corresponding to the particles was presented in a semantically and morphologically opaque way (e.g., the letters ab were embedded in the German word kn ab e, engl. boy), no compatibility effect was found, underlining that the effect was due to word meanings rather than visual features. The results underscore the boundary conditions for using compatibility effects in investigating lexical and semantic spatial processing in humans.

Spatial–numerical associations in the presence of an avatar

When we interact with other people or avatars, they often provide an alternative spatial frame of reference compared to our own. Previous studies introduced avatars into stimulus–response compatibility tasks and demonstrated compatibility effects as if the participant was viewing the task from the avatar’s point of view. However, the origin of this effect of perspective taking remained unclear. To distinguish changes in stimulus coding from changes in response coding, caused by the avatar, two experiments were conducted that combined a SNARC task and a spontaneous visual perspective taking task to specify the role of response coding. We observed compatibility effects that were based on the avatar’s perspective rather than the participants’ own. Because number magnitude was independent of the avatar’s perspective, the observed changes in compatibility caused by different perspectives indicate changes in response coding. These changes in response coding are only significant when they are accompanied by visual action effects.

No evidence for automatic response activation with target onset in the avatar-compatibility task

When people take the perspective of an avatar and perform a stimulus-response compatibility task, they generally show the same compatibility effects that are expected from the avatar’s position instead of their own. In this study, we investigated if these effects are caused by automatic response activation, a concept featured in dual-route models of stimulus-response compatibility. In two experiments we asked 24 participants each to perform a compatibility task from an avatar’s point of view. We introduced a delay between the presentation of the target and the avatar in half of the trials so that the participants had to wait until the avatar appeared to select the correct response. Because the automatic response activation is known to decay quickly, its influence is eliminated in this condition. In contrast to the prediction by the automatic response activation account, we observed a larger compatibility effect in the delayed condition with orthogonal (Experiment 1) and parallel (Experiment 2) stimulus-response pairings. Additionally, distributional analyses of the compatibility effects did not support the automaticity predictions. We conclude that these results call into question the role of automatic response activation for spatial compatibility in general and perspective-based compatibility effects in particular.

Training With Direct Versus Indirect Spatial Stimulus–Response Compatibility in Combat Sports

The study examined effects of spatial stimulus–response compatibility on response time and response accuracy in 20 novice combat sport athletes. Two equivalent groups, based on initial reaction time measures, were required to perceive and move quickly and accurately in response to an unspecific visual stimulus presented on a large screen during the two types of perceptual training in eight laboratory sessions. One group reacted by moving the fist toward the stimulus location on the target (direct compatibility condition). Another group was required to move the fist away from target in the opposite direction (indirect compatibility condition). Specifically, the indirect compatibility group achieved faster reaction times than the direct compatibility group during the two posttests containing video-projected attacks of the opponents, and in one of the two posttests containing real opponents’ attacks. Results seem to reveal higher combat performance against real opponents when athletes trained with an indirect stimulus–response compatibility condition.