Response-compatibility effects in focused-attention tasks: A same-hand advantage in response activation

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that responses can be partially activated by irrelevant stimuli in focused-attention tasks. In two experiments, such response activation was used to investigate the organization of keypress responses. Stimuli were rows of three letters, with a relevant target letter in the middle of the row and irrelevant flanker letters on the outside. There were four target letters, and these were assigned to four keypress responses made with the index and middle fingers of the two hands. Irrelevant flankers were parentheses, a neutral letter, or one of the four target letters. Responses were fastest when flankers were identical to the target, indicating facilitation of a response activated by both relevant and irrelevant letters. When flankers were response-incompatible target letters, responses were faster if these were target letters assigned to a response finger on the same hand as the correct response than if they were target letters assigned to a response finger on the opposite hand. The latter result is consistent with the hypothesis that simultaneous activation of two response fingers on the same hand produces faster responses than simultaneous activation of two response fingers on different hands, as assumed by Miller (1982). In Experiment 2, flankers were presented slightly before targets, and flankers that were same-hand target letters sometimes facilitated responses relative to the neutral parentheses flankers.In a series of papers concerning visual selective attention, C. W. Eriksen and his coworkers have documented a sizable response-compatibility effect of unattended stimuli. In one series of experiments, for example, subjects were presented with rows of letters and told to respond to the identity of the middle letter, ignoring the flanker letters on either side (C. W. Eriksen & Schultz, 1979). Even though the flankers were to be ignored, responses were faster when flankers were targets assigned to the same response as the relevant middle letter (response-compatible trials) than when flankers were target letters assigned to the opposite response (responseincompatible trials). Reaction time (RT) was intermediate when the flankers were response-neutral letters, indicating that target flankers produced both facilitation and inhibition.Two recent studies indicate that much or all of this response-compatibility effect is produced by competition in response activation processes. C. W. Eriksen, Coles, Morris, and O'Hara (1985) measured electromyographic (EMG) activity as an index of response activation. They found that response-incompatible displays caused more This research was supported by NIMH Grant PHS-MH40733. I would like to thank C. W. Eriksen, Patricia Haden, Roland Schaffer, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper, particularly suggestions leading to Experiment 2. I would also like to thank Grace Fang, Alann Lopes, Brent Roberts, and Thomica James

Unconscious processing of color and form in metacontrast masking

“…We used means instead of medians because of the unequal proportion of trials completed by each participant (Miller, 1988). This analysis revealed no significant main effects (both Fs 1) but a significant awareness congruency interaction [F(1,15) masked stimulus on a majority of the trials.…”

Combined perceptual or motor-related expectancies modulated by type of cue

“…Thus, Experiment 2 replicated and extended the findings from Experiment 1 in a radically different task. Experiment 2 used a cuing paradigm that extended previous studies on motor control of finger movements (Miller, 1982(Miller, , 1985(Miller, , 1988Reeve & Proctor, 1984, 1985. When the effects of valid and invalid cues for finger or hand components of a forthcoming movement were compared, the results indicate that both components can be specified in variable order if the precues consist of a word and an arrow.…”

“…Lambert and Hockey used cues with 66% validity and found additive effects of expectancies when median RTs were analyzed. However, analysis of median RT possibly eliminated a true interaction, because sample medians tend to overestimate population medians when samples are small, as in conditions with invalid cues (Miller, 1988). Thus, given the background of a reliable expectancy interaction with a cue validity of 75% in previous experiments (Mattler, in press), the effect of cue validity remains at least unclear.…”

“…The results showed that only hand precues had an effect on RT, suggesting that the finger component of these movements cannot be specified unless it is clear which hand to use. In other words, order of specification was not variable (see Miller, 1985Miller, , 1987Miller, , 1988. Proctor (1984, 1985) questioned Miller's results because they found that the hand advantage effect depended on participants' strategy and disappeared when the time between the cue and the target was 3,000 msec.…”

Extending the study of visual attention to a multisensory world (Charles W. Eriksen Special Issue)

“…Interestingly though, Driver and Baylis argued that their results did not fit easily with Treisman's Feature Integration Theory (FIT; see Treisman & Gelade, 1980). 4 In summary, while it is undoubtedly appropriate for researchers to try and eliminate the putative effects of changes in visual acuity on performance, and to try and ensure that the participants really are discriminating between letters rather than merely line features, the basic flanker effect has remained surprisingly robust to a wide range of experimental modifications (improvements) to Eriksen and Eriksen's original design (see also Miller, 1988Miller, , 1991.…”