On the Persistence of Tool-Based Compatibility Effects
Abstract
Using tools, such as simple levers, makes specific demands on the motor system. Two related performance decrements have been reported: The costs that arise when required tool movements and movements of the operating hand are spatially incompatible (hand-tool compatibility), and the costs that arise when relevant stimuli and tool movements are spatially incompatible (stimulus-tool compatibility). We performed two experiments to test the boundary conditions of both effects. Experiment 1 revealed a strong hand-tool compatibility effect despite visual occlusion of the hand and instructions to ignore hand movements. Experiment 2 revealed influences of stimulus-tool compatibility despite instructions to ignore the tool and to pay attention to the operating hand alone. These results suggest that lever movements of the type studied here become automatically represented and constrain motor performance.
References
(2002). Spatial intention-response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 109, 285–299.
(2008). Action goal selection and motor planning can be dissociated by tool use. Cognition, 109, 363–371.
(1999). Experienced surgeons are automated to the “fulcrum effect”: An ergonomic demonstration. Endoscopy, 31, 365–369.
(1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.
(2010). Shaking hands: Priming by social action effects. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 739–747.
(2006). Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surgical Endoscopy, 20, 730–733.
(1825). Psychologie als Wissenschaft neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik und Mathematik
[Psychology as a science newly founded on experience, metaphysics, and mathematics] . Königsberg: August Wilhelm Unzer.(2009). Trajectories in operating a handheld tool. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 375–389.
(1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279.
(2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 869–937.
(2009). Visual and tactile action effects determine bimanual coordination performance. Human Movement Science, 28, 437–449.
(2002). Verbal response-effect compatibility. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1297–1303.
(2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.
(2003). Temporal response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 67, 153–159.
(2002). The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica, 109, 137–155.
(2007). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors, 49, 661–670.
(2010). Do you know where your fingers have been? Explicit knowledge of the spatial layout of the keyboard in skilled typists. Memory & Cognition, 38, 474–484.
(2010). Bimanual interference with compatible and incompatible tool transformations. Acta Psychologica, 135, 201–208.
(2001). Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature, 414, 69–73.
(2008). Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 211–231.
(2009). Perceiving one’s own movement when using a tool. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 359–365.
(2010). Adaptive control of ideomotor effect anticipations. Acta Psychologica, 135, 316–322.
(2006). Stimulus-response compatibility: Data, theory, and applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
(1986). What is crossed in cross-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62, 89–100.
(2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–974.
(1969). Reactions towards the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.
(2009). Learning the visuomotor transformation of virtual and real sliding levers: Simple approximations of complex transformations. Experimental Brain Research, 195, 153–165.
(2003). The Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 261–273.
(2006). Stimulus-response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 207–222.
