EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
52,725,316
Abstracts:
28,411,598
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Electrophysiological study of intrahemispheric stimulus response compatibility effects elicited by visual directional cues


Psychophysiology 23(1): 19-27
Electrophysiological study of intrahemispheric stimulus response compatibility effects elicited by visual directional cues
The effects of stimulus-response (S-R) spatial compatibility on reaction time (RT) and P300 component latency were studied, in order to determine whether spatial conflict effects can occur within a single cerebral hemisphere, and whether there are differences between hemispheres regarding such effects. Two choice RT experimental conditions were employed: (I) an extrafoveal condition, in which stimuli (small arrows pointing either to the right or to the left) appeared laterally in one visual hemifield, the responses being given with the hand situated on the same side; likewise with the opposite hemifield and hand (cond. I); and (II) a foveal condition, in which the same type of stimuli appeared centrally on the fovea, the response being given successively with both hands (cond. II). In either case, the color of the stimuli (cue information) determined which finger (forefinger or ring finger) of the same hand would deliver the response. Thus, the cue was either compatible, or not, with the stimulus orientation (arrows). In each condition, the four possible stimulus combinations, according to direction and color of the arrows, were presented at random. Results showed that: (1) in the extrafoveal condition, S-R compatibility effects were observed in each single hemisphere, and were reflected both by RT and by P300 latency; (2) both hemispheres reacted in the same way to the spatial conflict; and (3) foveal vision increased the overall effect of the conflict on both P300 latency and RT.


Accession: 005349838



Related references

Electrophysiological study of intrahemispheric S-R compatibility effects elicited by visual directional cues. Psychophysiology 23(1): 19-27, 1986

Effects of visual cue and response assignment on spatial stimulus coding in stimulus-response compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65(1): 55-72, 2012

Spatial stimulus response compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: 163-168, 1972

Evidence for stimulus-response compatibility effects in a divided visual field study of cerebral lateralization. Acta Psychologica 66(2): 127-138, 1987

An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology 37(4): 464-472, July, 2000

Effects of visual stimulus degradation stimulus response compatibility and foreperiod duration on choice reaction time and movement time. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 12(2): 106-108, 1978

Directional stimulus-response compatibility: a test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics 41(6): 864-880, 1998

Cross-modal compatibility effects with visual-spatial and auditory-verbal stimulus and response sets. Perception & Psychophysics 55(1): 42-47, 1994

Interhemispheric vs. stimulus-response spatial compatibility effects in bimanual reaction times to lateralized visual stimuli. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 362-362, 2013

Stimulus-response compatibility for moving stimuli: Perception of affordances or directional coding?. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance 19(1): 81-91, 1993