+ Translate

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

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

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.

(PDF 0-2 workdays service)

Accession: 005349838

Submit PDF Full Text: Here

Submit PDF Full Text

No spam - Every submission is manually reviewed

Due to poor quality, we do not accept files from Researchgate

Submitted PDF Full Texts will always be free for everyone
(We only charge for PDFs that we need to acquire)

Select a PDF file:

Related references

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

Nishimura, A.; Yokosawa, K., 2012: 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 o...

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

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

Masaki, H.; Takasawa, N.; Yamazaki, K., 2000: An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. This study investigated the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility task using event-related potentials (ERPs). Ten participants were instructed to respond to stimulus color with the left or right middle finger. Red o...

Frowein, H.W.; Sanders, A.F., 1978: Effects of visual stimulus degradation stimulus response compatibility and foreperiod duration on choice reaction time and movement time. In a 2 by 2 factorial experiment, 12 human subjects carried out a choice reaction time [RT] task. Independent variables were foreperiod duration (1.5 s vs. 10.5 s), stimulus degradation and stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility. The speed of the r...

Worringham, C.J.; Beringer, D.B., 1998: Directional stimulus-response compatibility: a test of three alternative principles. The basis of directional stimulus-response compatibility was studied using a task in which 128 participants moved a cursor into targets with a joystick, resembling the operation of certain industrial and construction equipment. Compatible and inco...

Proctor, R.W.; Dutta, A.; Kelly, P.L.; Weeks, D.J., 1994: Cross-modal compatibility effects with visual-spatial and auditory-verbal stimulus and response sets. Within the visual-spatial and auditory-verbal modalities, reaction times to a stimulus have been shown to be faster if salient features of the stimulus and response sets correspond than if they do not. Accounts that attribute such stimulus-respons...

Pellicano, A.; Barna, V.; Nicoletti, R.; Rubichi, S.; Marzi, C.A., 2013: Interhemispheric vs. stimulus-response spatial compatibility effects in bimanual reaction times to lateralized visual stimuli. In the present study, we tested right- and left-handed participants in a Poffenberger paradigm with bimanual responses and hands either in an anatomical or in a left-right inverted posture. We observed a significant positive crossed-uncrossed diff...

Proctor, R., W.; Van-Zandt, T.; Lu, C.-Hui; Weeks, D., J., 1993: Stimulus-response compatibility for moving stimuli: Perception of affordances or directional coding?. Michaels reported a compatibility effect in which responses were fastest at the destination of a moving stimulus; the interpreted this "destination" compatibility effect in terms of catching actions "afforded" by the stimulus m...