SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “stimulus-response compatibility”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

10 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2002

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection

The purpose of this paper was to provide insight into the nature of response selection by reviewing the literature on stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects and the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect individually and jointly. The empirical findings and theoretical explanations of SRC effects that have been studied within a single-task context suggest that there are two response-selection routes-automatic activation and intentional translation. In contrast, all major PRP models reviewed in this paper have treated response selection as a single processing stage. In particular, the response-selection bottleneck (RSB) model assumes that the processing of Task 1 and Task 2 comprises two separate streams and that the PRP effect is due to a bottleneck located at response selection. Yet, considerable evidence from studies of SRC in the PRP paradigm shows that the processing of the two tasks is more interactive than is suggested by the RSB model and by most other models of the PRP effect. The major implication drawn from the studies of SRC effects in the PRP context is that response activation is a distinct process from final response selection. Response activation is based on both long-term and short-term task-defined S-R associations and occurs automatically and in parallel for the two tasks. The final response selection is an intentional act required even for highly compatible and practiced tasks and is restricted to processing one task at a time. Investigations of SRC effects and response-selection variables in dual-task contexts should be conducted more systematically because they provide significant insight into the nature of response-selection mechanisms.

Review Literature↗

NASA NTRS2002

Ideomotor compatibility in the psychological refractory period effect: 29 years of oversimplification

Four experiments examined whether the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect can be eliminated with ideomotor compatible (IM) but not stimulus-response compatible (SR) tasks, as reported by A. G. Greenwald and H. G. Shulman (1973). Their tasks were used: a left or right movement to a left- or right-pointing arrow (IM) or to the word left or right (SR) for Task 1; saying "A" or "B" (IM) or "1" or "2" (SR) to an auditory A or B for Task 2. The stimulus onset asynchronies were 0, 100, 200, 300, 500, and 1,000 ms in Experiment 1, and only 0, 100, 200, and 1,000 ms in Experiments 2-4. The arrow was in the center of the screen in Experiments 1-3 and to the left or right in Experiment 4. As in Greenwald and Shulman's Experiment 2, the instructions stated that most often the 2 stimuli would be presented simultaneously. A PRP effect was obtained in all conditions, most likely because response-selection decisions are required even for IM tasks.

Refractory Period, Psychological↗

NASA NTRS1988

Information processing

Theoretical models of sensory-information processing by the human brain are reviewed from a human-factors perspective, with a focus on their implications for aircraft and avionics design. The topics addressed include perception (signal detection and selection), linguistic factors in perception (context provision, logical reversals, absence of cues, and order reversals), mental models, and working and long-term memory. Particular attention is given to decision-making problems such as situation assessment, decision formulation, decision quality, selection of action, the speed-accuracy tradeoff, stimulus-response compatibility, stimulus sequencing, dual-task performance, task difficulty and structure, and factors affecting multiple task performance (processing modalities, codes, and stages).

Wickens, Christopher D.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Dual-task interference with equal task emphasis: graded capacity sharing or central postponement?

Most studies using the psychological refractory period (PRP) design suggest that dual-task performance is limited by a central bottleneck. Because subjects are usually told to emphasize Task 1, however, the bottleneck might reflect a strategic choice rather than a structural limitation. To evaluate the possibility that central operations can proceed in parallel, albeit with capacity limitations, we conducted two dual-task experiments with equal task emphasis. In both experiments, subjects tended to either group responses together or respond to one task well before the other. In addition, stimulus-response compatibility effects were roughly constant across stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). At the short SOA, compatibility effects also carried over onto response times for the other task. This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with the possibility that subjects share capacity roughly equally between simultaneous central operations. However, this pattern is consistent with the existence of a structural central bottleneck.

Auditory Perception↗

NASA NTRS1992

Compatibility and consistency in display-control systems - Implications for aircraft decision aid design

In this study we contrast display-control movement relations defined in terms of stimulus-response (physical) compatibility with those defined by stimulus-cognitive compatibility, and we relate these findings to the issue of command versus status levels of decision aid support. A second issue addressed is the cost of inconsistency across multiple display-control mappings. Subjects performed a flight control task while responding to one to four analog indicators, formatted as either command or status displays. The results suggest that there is an advantage for the status format when subjects are required to verbally report the state of the indicator(s), but no advantage was found for either format when subjects were required to manually correct the indicated state. The data point to the importance of display-control consistency and suggest that it may even outweigh that of compatibility.

Andre, Anthony D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Misalignment Effect Function Measurement for Oblique Rotation Axes: Counterintuitive Predictions and Theoretical Extensions

The Misalignment Effect Function (MEF) describes the decrement in manual performance associated with a rotation between operators' visual display frame of reference and that of their manual control. It now has been empirically determined for rotation axes oblique to canonical body axes and is compared with the MEF previously measured for rotations about canonical axes. A targeting rule, called the Secant Rule, based on these earlier measurements is derived from a hypothetical process and shown to describe some of the data from three previous experiments. It explains the motion trajectories determined for rotations less than 65deg in purely kinematic terms without the need to appeal to a mental rotation process. Further analysis of this rule in three dimensions applied to oblique rotation axes leads to a somewhat surprising expectation that the difficulty posed by rotational misalignment should get harder as the required movement is shorter. This prediction is confirmed. Geometry underlying this rule also suggests analytic extensions for predicting more generally the difficulty of making movements in arbitrary directions subject to arbitrary misalignments.

rotated control frames↗

NASA NTRS1992

Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference

Two experiments used the locus-of-cognitive-slack method to determine whether dual-task interference occurs before or after the response selection stage. The experiments used the overlapping tasks paradigm, in which two signals, each requiring a different speeded choice response, are presented in rapid succession. In Experiment 1, stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility was manipulated by varying whether Task 2 stimuli were mapped onto their responses by a rule or arbitrarily. Compatibility effects were additive with the effects of degree of task overlap, manipulated by varying the stimulus onset asynchrony between the signals. Experiment 2 examined 2 additional forms of S-R compatibility: symbolic compatability (arrows vs. letters) and spatial compatibility (the 'Simon' effect). Effects of symbolic compatibility were additive with effects of degree of task overlap, whereas the effects of spatial compatibility and degree of task overlap were underadditive. It is argued that only a central-bottleneck model provides a consistent account of these results. The nature of the central bottleneck is considered.

Mccann, Robert S.↗

NASA NTRS2001

Stimulus-response incompatibility activates cortex proximate to three eye fields

We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate cortical activation during the performance of three oculomotor tasks that impose increasing levels of cognitive demand. (1) In a visually guided saccade (VGS) task, subjects made saccades to flashed targets. (2) In a compatible task, subjects made leftward and rightward saccades in response to foveal presentation of the uppercase words "LEFT" or "RIGHT." (3) In a mixed task, subjects made rightward saccades in response to the lowercase word "left" and leftward saccades in response to the lowercase word "right" on incompatible trials (60%). The remaining 40% of trials required compatible responses to uppercase words. The VGS and compatible tasks, when compared to fixation, activated the three cortical eye fields: the supplementary eye field (SEF), the frontal eye field (FEF), and the parietal eye field (PEF). The mixed task, when compared to the compatible task, activated three additional cortical regions proximate to the three eye fields: (1) rostral to the SEF in medial frontal cortex; (2) rostral to the FEF in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC); (3) rostral and lateral to the PEF in posterior parietal cortex. These areas may contribute to the suppression of prepotent responses and in holding novel visuomotor associations in working memory. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

NASA Discipline Neuroscience↗

NASA NTRS1991

S-R compatibility effects with orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions

An experiment was conducted to assess the relative influence of several factors on performance with orthogonal stimulus-response arrays. Subjects responded to the onset of one of three aligned light circles with a press of one of three aligned response keys. The response array was aligned parallel, angled, or orthogonal to the stimulus array. The results indicated that performance with orthogonal arrays is worse than with parallel or angled S-R arrays. For the orthogonal arrangements, the results also indicate that each hand prefers a mapping directly opposite to the other hand, and that this mapping reverses when the orientation of the stimulus and response arrays are transposed. In addition, the results also revealed that the relative costs of orthogonal S-R arrangements are somewhat attenuated when the assigned mapping associates (i.e., colocates) a given display with its closest control.

Andre, Anthony D.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice

E. H. Schumacher, T. L. Seymour, J. M. Glass, D. E. Kieras, and D. E. Meyer (2001) reported that dual-task costs are minimal when participants are practiced and give the 2 tasks equal emphasis. The present research examined whether such findings are compatible with the operation of an efficient response selection bottleneck. Participants trained until they were able to perform both tasks simultaneously without interference. Novel stimulus pairs produced no reaction time costs, arguing against the development of compound stimulus-response associations (Experiment 1). Manipulating the relative onsets (Experiments 2 and 4) and durations (Experiments 3 and 4) of response selection processes did not lead to dual-task costs. The results indicate that the 2 tasks did not share a bottleneck after practice.

Practice (Psychology)↗