Zhong Qi, Xiong Aiping, Vu Kim-Phuong L, Proctor Robert W
Intelligent Transport Systems Research Center of Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, 430063, Hubei, China.
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907‑2004, USA.
Exp Brain Res. 2018 Jan;236(1):175-185. doi: 10.1007/s00221-017-5116-z. Epub 2017 Nov 4.
Conde et al. (Exp Brain Res 233:3313-3321, 2015) found that the Simon effect for vertically arrayed stimuli and responses was reduced after 100 prior practice trials with an incompatible mapping of the stimulus locations and responses. This finding was contrary to Vu's (Mem Cognit 35:1463-1471, 2007) finding of no transfer effect with 72 trials of prior practice. Conde et al. proposed that the different results were due to their responses being coded as top and bottom in the frontal plane, whereas Vu's were coded as far and near in the transverse plane. We conducted four experiments to test this possibility in which participants responded with keypresses using their thumbs on a numeric keypad held vertically (upright in the frontal plane) or horizontally (flat in the transverse plane). Experiment 1 showed that, without any prior practice, a similar sized Simon effect was obtained when the response device was oriented in the transverse plane as when it was oriented in the frontal plane. In Experiments 2 and 3 participants performed with the same device orientation in the incompatible practice and Simon transfer tasks, with orientation manipulated between-subjects in the former and within-subjects in the latter. The Simon effect was reduced in both cases, with no significant difference in transfer effect for transverse and frontal planes. In Experiment 4, the device orientation differed between the incompatible practice and Simon transfer tasks, and the Simon effect was reduced similarly across both response-device orientations. Thus, the differences between Conde et al.'s and Vu's findings cannot be attributed to the response-device orientation. Our results are consistent with the view that people code response locations in the transverse plane as top and bottom, rather than far and near, in agreement with the terminology of "top row" and "bottom row" for computer keyboards.
孔德等人(《实验脑研究》233:3313 - 3321,2015年)发现,在对刺激位置和反应进行不兼容映射的100次先前练习试验后,垂直排列的刺激和反应的西蒙效应有所降低。这一发现与武(《记忆与认知》35:1463 - 1471,2007年)的发现相反,武发现72次先前练习试验没有迁移效应。孔德等人提出,不同的结果是由于他们的反应在额平面上被编码为顶部和底部,而武的反应在横平面上被编码为远和近。我们进行了四项实验来检验这种可能性,实验中参与者用拇指在垂直(在额平面上直立)或水平(在横平面上平放)握持的数字键盘上按键做出反应。实验1表明,在没有任何先前练习的情况下,当反应设备在横平面上定向时与在额平面上定向时获得的西蒙效应大小相似。在实验2和3中,参与者在不兼容的练习和西蒙迁移任务中使用相同的设备定向,在前者中定向在受试者间进行操纵,在后者中在受试者内进行操纵。在这两种情况下西蒙效应都降低了,横平面和额平面的迁移效应没有显著差异。在实验4中,不兼容的练习和西蒙迁移任务之间的设备定向不同,并且在两种反应设备定向下西蒙效应的降低程度相似。因此,孔德等人和武的发现之间的差异不能归因于反应设备的定向。我们的结果与这样一种观点一致,即人们在横平面上将反应位置编码为顶部和底部,而不是远和近,这与计算机键盘的“顶行”和“底行”术语一致。