Skip to main content
Research Article

An Investigation of Spatial Stimulus-Response Compatibility Effects Based on German Particles

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000407

Abstract. In the current study, we tested if stimulus-response (SR) compatibility effects of spatially ambiguous words depend on a semantic priming context. Although many words, including spatial words, can take on several meanings, this is an open question. From Experiments 1 to 3, we manipulated the likelihood that the vertical meaning of the German particles auf and ab was processed by (1) instructing the processing of vertical meaning in Experiment 1, but not in Experiments 2 and 3, and (2) by using verbs that either primed (Experiments 1 and 2) or did not prime (Experiments 1–3) the targets’ vertical meanings. Spatial SR compatibility effects resulted, regardless of whether or not the processing of the vertical meaning was instructed and the vertical meaning was primed. Results suggest that the selection between vertically discriminated responses could be sufficient to elicit the participants’ extraction of the vertical meaning of the ambiguous particles.

References

  • Ahlberg, D. K., Bischoff, H., Kaup, B., Bryant, D. & Strozyk, J. V. (2018). Grounded cognition: Comparing language × space interactions in first language and second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641700042X First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ansorge, U. & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Armstrong, B. C. & Plaut, D. C. (2016). Disparate semantic ambiguity effects from semantic processing dynamics rather than qualitative task differences. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 940–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1171366 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99532147 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Carreiras, M., Armstrong, B. C., Perea, M. & Frost, R. (2014). The what, when, where, and how of visual word recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.005 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Damian, M. F. (2001). Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: Automaticity rather than semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.154 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Finkbeiner, M. & Heathcote, A. (2016). Distinguishing the time-and magnitude-difference accounts of the Simon effect: Evidence from the reach-to-touch paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 848–867. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-1044-9 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Frost, R. (2012). A universal approach to modeling visual word recognition and reading: Not only possible, but also inevitable. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000635 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Glenberg, A. M. & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196313 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Glenberg, A. M., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Riggio, L., Palumbo, D. & Buccino, G. (2008). Processing abstract language modulates motor system activity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 905–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701625550 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Joordens, S. & Besner, D. (1994). When banking on meaning is not (yet) money in the bank: Explorations in connectionist modeling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1051 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Khalid, S. & Ansorge, U. (2013). The Simon effect of spatial words in eye movements: Comparison of vertical and horizontal effects and of eye and finger responses. Vision Research, 86, 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.04.001 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Kiefer, M. & Barsalou, L. W. (2013). Grounding the human conceptual system in perception, action, and internal states. In W. PrinzM. BeisertA. HerwigEds., Tutorials in action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 381–401). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kunde, W., Kiesel, A. & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00023-4 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Lakens, D. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024955 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Lu, C. H. & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210959 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Luo, C., Proctor, R. W. & Weng, X. (2015). A Stroop effect emerges in the processing of complex Chinese characters that contain a color-related radical. Psychological Research, 79, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0553-9 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Luo, C., Proctor, R. W., Weng, X. & Li, X. (2014). Spatial Stroop interference occurs in the processing of radicals of ideogrammic compounds. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 715–720. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0533-x First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of the effect of context in perception: Part 1. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X. 88.5.375 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pellicano, A., Lugli, L., Baroni, G. & Nicoletti, R. (2009). The Simon effect with conventional signals: A time-course analysis. Experimental Psychology, 56, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.219 First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar

  • Proctor, R. W. & Vu, K. P. L. (2002). Mixing location-irrelevant and location-relevant trials: Influence of stimulus mode on spatial compatibility effects. Memory & Cognition, 30, 281–293. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195289 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.08.002 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M. & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 489–537. https://doi.org/10. 1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285–318. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1014 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zwaan, R. A. (2003). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(03)44002-4 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar