Preparation for horizontal or vertical dimensions affects the right-left prevalence effect

Effects of visual cue and response assignment on spatial stimulus coding in stimulus-response compatibility

Tlauka and McKenna ( 2000 ) reported a reversal of the traditional stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect (faster responding to a stimulus presented on the same side than to one on the opposite side) when the stimulus appearing on one side of a display is a member of a superordinate unit that is largely on the opposite side. We investigated the effects of a visual cue that explicitly shows a superordinate unit, and of assignment of multiple stimuli within each superordinate unit to one response, on the SRC effect based on superordinate unit position. Three experiments revealed that stimulus-response assignment is critical, while the visual cue plays a minor role, in eliciting the SRC effect based on the superordinate unit position. Findings suggest bidirectional interaction between perception and action and simultaneous spatial stimulus coding according to multiple frames of reference, with contribution of each coding to the SRC effect flexibly varying with task situations.

Response-specifying cue for action interferes with perception of feature-sharing stimuli

Perceiving a visual stimulus is more difficult when a to-be-executed action is compatible with that stimulus, which is known as blindness to response-compatible stimuli. The present study explored how the factors constituting the action event (i.e., response-specifying cue, response intention, and response feature) affect the occurrence of this blindness effect. The response-specifying cue varied along the horizontal and vertical dimensions, while the response buttons were arranged diagonally. Participants responded based on one dimension randomly determined in a trial-by-trial manner. The response intention varied along a single dimension, whereas the response location and the response-specifying cue varied within both vertical and horizontal dimensions simultaneously. Moreover, the compatibility between the visual stimulus and the response location and the compatibility between that stimulus and the response-specifying cue was separately determined. The blindness effect emerged exclusively based on the feature correspondence between the response-specifying cue of the action task and the visual target of the perceptual task. The size of this stimulus-stimulus (S-S) blindness effect did not differ significantly across conditions, showing no effect of response intention and response location. This finding emphasizes the effect of stimulus factors, rather than response factors, of the action event as a source of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli.

Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects

In previous studies of task switching and of the right-left prevalence effect, researchers have used a procedure in which the stimulus on each trial occurs in one of four quadrants, and responses are made by pressing one of two diagonally arranged response keys. Across these studies, discrepant effects of cuing interval have been reported. These discrepancies need clarification because cue-based preparation effects are frequently interpreted as reflecting cognitive control processes. In Experiment 1, we compared performance with display formats used by Meiran (1996; Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, 2000; small display, cues located at sides of quadrants and displayed until response) to study task switching and by Proctor and colleagues (Proctor, Koch, & Vu, 2006; large display, cues located at center of display and shown until target onset) to study right-left prevalence. We found a decrease in task-switch cost with increasing cuing interval with the Meiran display, but not with the Proctor display, but the right-left prevalence effect was of similar size for the two display formats and was relatively unaffected by cuing interval. To determine the basis of the discrepant task-switch results, we used small and large displays in Experiments 2 and 3, respectively, with cue type and cue offset varied. With the side cues, the task-switch cost decreased in all cases at the longer cuing interval, but with the centered cues, it decreased only when the display size was small. Thus, the effects of cuing interval on switch costs are sensitive to variations of display characteristics, whereas cuing interval and display characteristics have little influence on the right-left prevalence effect, suggesting that prevalence effect is due to processes that are independent from those producing the switch cost.