Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2011 | Original Article

Working-memory load decreases mappings effects in spatial-compatibility tasks

Auteur: Peter Wühr

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2011

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

The paper investigates the role of working memory for the translation of spatial stimuli into spatial responses. Performance is typically superior with compatible mapping between stimulus and response locations than with incompatible mapping (spatial-mapping effect). According to popular dual-route models, the spatial-mapping effect may arise from differences in the effectiveness of S–R translation, and/or from the effects of automatic response activation. Working-memory load should not affect the automatic route, but delay S–R translation in the incompatible condition, increasing the mapping effect under load. These predictions were tested in two dual-task experiments. Participants performed a spatial-compatibility task with compatible or incompatible S–R mapping, while memorizing different amounts of spatial (Experiment 1) or verbal (Experiment 2) information. In both experiments, working-memory load decreased the mapping effect, but did not eliminate it. Results are at odds with the dual-route account. An alternative explanation based on the response-discrimination account (Ansorge and Wühr in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:365–377, 2004) is proposed.
vorige artikel Feature absence–presence and two theories of lapses of sustained attention
volgende artikel Motor skill learning in the middle-aged: limited development of motor chunks and explicit sequence knowledge
Voetnoten
1
Using different criteria for identifying and excluding outliers did not alter the pattern of findings. For example, similar findings were obtained in both experiments when I excluded all trials where RTs deviated by three standard deviations from the mean in a particular load condition.
 
Literatuur
Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.PubMedCrossRef
Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2009). Transfer of response codes from choice-response to go-nogo tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1216–1235.PubMedCrossRef
Brebner, J., Shepard, M., & Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S–R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 36, 1–15.PubMedCrossRef
Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S–R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.PubMedCrossRef
Heister, G., & Schröder-Heister, P. (1994). Spatial S–R compatibility: Positional instruction vs. compatibility instruction. Acta Psychologica, 85, 15–24.PubMedCrossRef
Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279.CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261–268.PubMedCrossRef
Hommel, B. (2002). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus–response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention & performance, Vol. XVIII, control of cognitive processes (pp. 247–273). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davis (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). Orlando: Academic Press.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.PubMedCrossRef
Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242.PubMedCrossRef
Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.PubMedCrossRef
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3–65.PubMedCrossRef
Neumann, O. (1984). Automatic processing: A review of recent findings and a plea for an old theory. In W. Prinz & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes (pp. 255–293). Berlin: Springer.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles. Data, theory, and practice. Boca-Raton: Taylor & Francis.
Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S–R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284–288.PubMedCrossRef
Shiu, L.-P., & Kornblum, S. (1999). Stimulus–response compatibility effects in go-nogo tasks: A dimensional-overlap account. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1613–1623.CrossRef
Simon, J. R., Acosta, E., Mewaldt, S. P., & Speidel, C. R. (1976). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on choice-reaction time: Duration of the phenomenon and its relation to stages of processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 16–22.CrossRef
Stoffels, E.-J. (1996). Uncertainty and processing routes in the selection of a response: An S–R compatibility study. Acta Psychologica, 94, 227–252.PubMedCrossRef
Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, F. (2000). The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 648–670.PubMedCrossRef
Treccani, B., Umiltà, C., & Tagliabue, M. (2006). Simon effect with and without awareness of the accessory stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 268–286.PubMedCrossRef
Valle-Inclán, F. (1996). The locus of interference in the Simon effect: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 43, 147–162.PubMedCrossRef
Valle-Inclán, F., & Redondo, M. (1998). On the automaticity of ipsilateral response activation in the Simon effect. Psychophysiology, 35, 366–371.PubMedCrossRef
Vu, K. P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 539–556.
Wascher, E., Verleger, R., & Wauschkuhn, B. (1996). In pursuit of the Simon effect: The effect of S–R compatibility investigated by event-related potentials. Journal of Psychophysiology, 10, 336–346.
Welford, A. T. (1980). Choice-reaction time: Basic concepts. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 73–128). London: Academic Press.
Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2005). Dynamic aspects of S–R correspondence: Evidence towards two Simon effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 453–464.PubMedCrossRef
Wühr, P., & Biebl, R. (2010). The role of working memory in spatial S–R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, in press.
Wühr, P., Biebl, R., & Ansorge, A. (2008). The impact of stimulus and response variability on S–R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 533–545.PubMedCrossRef
Zhang, H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus–response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 386–432.PubMedCrossRef
Zorzi, M., & Umiltà, C. (1995). A computational model of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 58, 193–205.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Working-memory load decreases mappings effects in spatial-compatibility tasks
Auteur
Peter Wühr
Publicatiedatum
01-09-2011
Uitgeverij
Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2011
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0317-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2011

Motor skill learning in the middle-aged: limited development of motor chunks and explicit sequence knowledge

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task

  • Original Article

If it’s hard to read… try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments

  • Original Article

Feature absence–presence and two theories of lapses of sustained attention

  • Original Article

Left of centre: asymmetries for the horizontal vertical line illusion

  • Original Article

Perceiving performer identity and intended expression intensity in point-light displays of dance

  • Original Article