formats

Taxonomy of DO Ensembles

The dimensional overlap model provides a useful way of talking about compatibility tasks (more info: Why study compatibility effects?). 

When all the individual stimuli used in a task vary on a common stimulus dimension (e.g. red and blue varying on the color dimension), and all the individual responses that are used in that task also vary on a common response dimension (e.g. left and right varying on spatial dimension), they form a stimulus set and a response set, respectively. When these two sets are put together in a larger set, that larger set is called an ensemble.

In addition to a relevant stimulus dimension and a response dimension, a task may also have one or more dimensions: irrelevant stimulus dimensions that subjects are instructed to ignore .

Different task may be characterized by the properties of the ensemble that they use.  If the individual sets in the task are similar, be they a stimulus set and response set, or two stimulus sets, then we speak of that ensemble as having dimensional overlap. (more info: What is Dimensional Overlap?)

This allows us to define a broad framework for classifying different types of ensembles, or tasks,  based on the dimensional overlap, or set-level similarity, of the ensembles in the task. Dimensional Overlap (i.e similarity) is of course a continuous property; however, we can talk about tasks that either do, or not  have overlap between their different components.  A framework with three possible dimensions (relevant stimulus, irrelevant stimulus, response), all of which can either overlap or not overlap, produces a taxonomy of eight possible dimensional overlap ensembles or tasks types.

These eight types constitute the dimensional overlap ensemble taxonomy.

Type Relevant S-R
Overlap?
Irelevant S-R
Overlap?
S-S
Overlap?
Example Tasks
1 no no no CRT task
2 yes no no Fitts task
3 no yes no Simon task
4 no no yes Flanker Task
Stroop-like Tasks
Cross-modal tasks
5 yes yes no Hedge and Marsh task
6 yes no yes (not possible?)
7 no yes yes SS x SR task
8 yes yes yes Stroop task

The first ensemble in the taxonomy is a Type 1 task, which is a standard Choice Reaction Time (CRT) task with no dimensional overlap. This is technically not a compatibility task at all: it contains no dimensional overlap between any of its components. However, it is often used as a “neutral” condition in compatibility experiments in order to establish a comparison point for measuring the benefit of consistency versus the cost of inconsistency (more info: Choice Reaction Time (CRT) tasks).

After the Type 1 task, the taxonomy enumerates all of the possible combinations of dimensional overlap among the three dimensions, all the way up to the Type 8 task, which has overlap among all the dimensions: relevant stimulus, irrelevant stimulus, and response. The well-known Stroop task is an example of a Type 8 task (more info: The Stroop Task).

Click on the links in the above table for a more detailed description of the experiments and results of tasks belonging to each ensemble.

As an easy reference, the table below shows some sample stimulus and response sets that could be used to produce tasks of each type in the taxonomy.

Type Relevant Stimulus
Dimension
Irrelevant Stimulus
Dimension
Response
Dimension
Instructions
1 color vertical
position
left/right
key-press
press the left key for a green stimulus
press the right key for a blue stimulus
2 color digit color  names say “green” for a green stimulus
say “blue” for a blue stimulus
or
say “blue” for a green stimulus
say “green” for a blue stimulus
3 color horizontal
position
left/right
key-press
press the left key for a green stimulus
press the right key for a blue stimulus
4 color color word digit names say “two” for a green stimulus
say “four” for a blue stimulus
5 color horizontal
position
colored left/right
key-press
press the blue key for a blue stimulus
press a green key for a green stimulus
or
press the green key for a blue stimulus
press a blue key for a green stimulus
6 - - - (not possible?)
7 color horizontal position
and color word
left/right
key-press
press a left key for a green stimulus
press a right key for a blue stimulus
8 color color word color names say “blue” for a blue stimulus
say “green” for a green stimulus
or
say “green” for a blue stimulus
say “blue” for a green stimulus

 


 

NOTE: Although the above taxonomy represents the official taxonomy of the ensembles explored by the dimensional overlap model, it is possible to explore extensions of this taxonomy by examining new task dimensions.

For example, Stevens and Kornblum (2000, July) presented an extension of the taxonomy that distinguishes between the response dimension and the goal dimension in a task. The goal dimension is defined as the intended outcome of a response action, which may be different from the response action itself.

Hommel (1993a) performed a variation of the Simon task in which subjects were told to light up a light by pressing a key when a stimulus appeared. In these tasks, subjects either needed to press a right key to light up a light on the right side, or press a left key to light up a key on the right side. Hommel (1993a) showed that this consistency between the response (key position) and goal (light position) had a measurable effect on reaction time. Stevens and Kornblum (2000, July) were able to extend the computational dimensional overlap model to include overlap with a “goal dimension” to account for this effect (more info: The Computational Model).

 

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

The Stroop Task

The Stroop Task is a choice reaction time task where there is dimensional overlap between all three dimensions of the task: the relevant stimulus, the irrelevant stimulus, and the response.  In the dimensional overlap taxonomy, it is considered a Type 8 task.

Stroop (1935; see also Dyer, 1973; Lu & Proctor, 1995; MacLeod, 1991) studied the effects of an irrelevant color word in a color-naming task. In the simplest and most well-known version of the Stroop task, subjects are told to name the color of a stimulus (e.g. say the word “blue” when they see a blue stimulus). Along with the color, however, a color word (e.g. “blue” or “green”) is also presented. The color word can be either presented in the colors, or super-imposed on a colored background (see MacLeod, 1998). The color word is irrelevant, but it can be either consistent with the stimulus color and the response name (e.g. the word “blue” written in blue ink, requiring a response of “blue”) or inconsistent with the stimulus color and the response name (e.g. the word “green” written in blue ink, requiring a response of “blue”).

 

A simple Stroop task

 

Performance is slower and less accurate when the irrelevant stimulus word does not match the relevant stimulus and response, and faster and more accurate when it matches the relevant stimulus and response. The difference in reaction time is usually called the Stroop effect.

Stroop tasks permit a great deal of variation while still yielding the same basic consistency effect. This basic Stroop effect has been found using shapes and shape names (e.g. Irwin, 1978; Redding & Gerjets, 1977; Shor, 1971), pictures and picture names (e.g. Babbit, 1982; Dunbar, 1986; Rayner & Springer, 1986; Toma & Tsao, 1985) and spatial locations and their labels (e.g. Baldo, Shimamura, & Prinzmetal, 1998; Lu & Proctor, 1995; Palef, 1978; Seymour, 1973; Virzi & Egeth, 1985). Auditory Stroop tasks have also been studied, with typical stimuli being the words “left” and “right” spoken in the left and right ear (e.g. Green & Barber, 1981; McClain, 1983; Proctor & Pick, 1998; Ragot & Piori, 1994; Simon & Rudell, 1967). Although Stroop tasks have most commonly used conceptual dimensional overlap between dimensions (e.g. the learned associations between colors and their names) they have also used perceptual overlap (e.g. flanker stimuli) (e.g. Glaser & Glaser, 1982, 1989; Zhang & Kornblum, 1998).

In this standard version of the task, however, there is a problem: there is no way to determine whether this overall difference in reaction time is due to the S-S consistency or the irrelevant S-R consistency, or a combination of both.

Because there are three kinds of dimensional overlap in a Type 8 task, there are in principle three different compatibility effects that could appear: a mapping (relevant S-R) effect, an irrelevant S-R consistency effect, and an S-S consistency effect.

Zhang and Kornblum (1998) were able to measure each of these effects independently by constructing a four-choice Stroop task that included both a congruent and incongruent mapping. In this task, subjects responded to one of four words (“red”, “green”, “blue”, “yellow”) by saying one of four words from the same list. Above and below the target word appeared another irrelevant word from the same list. In the incongruent mapping condition, the words that appeared above and below the target could be either S-S inconsistent and S-R consistent (e.g. “blue” flanked by “blue” requiring a response of “green”), S-S inconsistent and S-R consistent (e.g. “blue” flanked by “green” requiring a response of “green”), or both S-S and S-R inconsistent (e.g. “blue” flanked by “red” requiring a response of “green”).

 

complete Stroop task and effects

 

When the mapping was incongruent, the reaction times were fastest for S-S consistent and S-R inconsistent flankers, intermediate for S-S inconsistent and S-R consistent flankers, and slowest for S-S and S-R inconsistent flankers. This demonstrates that both S-S consistency and S-R consistency contribute independent and separately measurable effects in the Stroop task, as predicted by the dimensional overlap model.

 

 

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

The Jaensch Effect

The Stroop Effect was first discovered by Erich Rudolf Jaensch in 1929.

So why is it called the “Stroop effect”?

Jaensch published his insight about the Stroop effect in a book called “Grundformen menschlichen Seins” in Berlin. The title means “Basic forms of human existence,” but as you can guess it was written entirely in German.

When John Ridley Stroop conducted his experiments and published the results in 1935, Jaensch’s book had not yet been translated into English or published in English-speaking countries. Because the majority of science publications at this time were written and read in English, the word spread on Stroop’s result very quickly, and soon his name was inseparable from the experimental task and the results that it proved.

Nobody believes that Stroop “stole” the idea from Jaensch: it’s fairly obvious that both people came up with the result independently.

But there is a lesson to be learned from this story: sometimes, being the first to discover something isn’t enough. You need to get people to know that you made the discovery, if you want to get the credit that you deserve.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

The SS x SR Task

The SS x SR Task, or SS x SR Factorial-Combination Task, is a choice reaction time task with two different irrelevant stimulus dimensions, where one has dimensional overlap with the relevant stimulus and the other has dimensional overlap with the response. This allows an examination of both an S-S consistency effect and an irrelevant S-R consistency effect in the same task. In the dimensional overlap taxonomy, it is considered a Type 7 task.

Stoffels and van der Molen (1988) were the first to explore a factorial combination task, by integrating an auditory Simon task with a Flanker task in the same experimental design. Subjects responded to the letter “H” or the letter “S” with a left or right key-press. These targets were presented with either “H” or “S” flankers on both sides, and an auditory tone presented in either the left or the right ear. The flankers could be S-S consistent or S-S inconsistent, while the tone could be either S-R consistent or S-R inconsistent. The S-S and S-R consistency had additive effects: the S-S consistency effect was the same regardless of S-R consistency, and the S-R consistency effect was the same regardless of S-S consistency.

A number of studies have also combined a visual Simon task with the Stroop-like task (Simon & Berbaum, 1990; Kornblum, 1994; Hommel, 1998; Kornblum et al., 1999). In these studies, subjects were told to respond to a stimulus color with a left or right key-press. The stimulus color was presented on the left or the right side of the display, either with a color word super-imposed on a colored rectangle or with the color itself spelling out the color word. Both the position of the color and the color word are irrelevant. Several of these experiments showed additive effects of S-S and S-R consistency.

Factorial Combination Task

These tasks have played an important role in the debate over the locus of the S-S consistency effect in cognitive processing. Specifically, Kornblum et al. (1999) used the computational dimensional overlap model to demonstrate that both the additivity and the different time-courses of S-S and S-R effects can be explained by assuming that stimulus and response processing occur in discrete stages and that S-S and S-R dimensional overlap impact different processing stages.

 

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

The Hedge and Marsh Task

The Hedge and Marsh Task, also sometimes called the Reverse-Simon Task, is a choice reaction time task where there is dimensional overlap between the irrelevant stimulus and the response and between the relevant stimulus and the response, but there is no dimensional overlap between the two stimulus dimensions. This is accomplished by having two separate but correlated response dimensions. In the dimensional overlap taxonomy, it is considered a Type 5 task.

Hedge and Marsh (1975) examined a variation of the standard Simon task in which subject pressed a left key or a right key in response to the color of a stimulus (red or green), while the stimulus color appeared on the left or right side of the screen; in addition, however, they color-coded the response keys so that the response set not only had dimensional overlap with the irrelevant stimulus set (due to left-right position) but also with the relevant stimulus set (due to color). In addition to S-R consistency, therefore, the instructions given to subjects could be either congruent (e.g. “press the key with the same color as the stimulus”) or incongruent (“press the key with the opposite color from the stimulus”). There is no dimensional overlap between the relevant stimulus set (color) and the irrelevant stimulus set (location), and therefore there is no S-S consistency.

Hedge and Marsh Task

Because the Hedge and Marsh task has two types of overlap, there are two compatibility effects that can be obsereved.  First, the experiment showed a standard mapping effect: overall reaction times were much faster wth compatible (i.e congruent) mapping, i.e. when  each color stimulus was mapped to a correspondingly colored response (e.g. “press the key with the same color as the stimulus”) than when the mapping was incompatible, that is incongruent  (e.g. “press the key with the opposite color from the stimulus”).

The effect of irrelevant stimulus-response consistency, however, was unusual. Hedge and Marsh found the surprising result that the irrelevant S-R consistency effect reverses when the mapping instructions are incompatible. That is, when the instruction were to press the key with the same color as the stimulus, the subjects responded faster when the stimulus position was consistent with the response position (the normal S-R consistency effect); however, when the instructions were to press the key with the opposite color from the stimulus, subjects responded faster when the stimulus position was inconsistent with the response key position (a reversed S-R consistency effect). This effect of the irrelevant stimulus in a Hedge and Marsh task is called a Hedge and Marsh effect or a reverse-Simon effect.

The reverse-Simon effect was met with some initial skepticism. Simon, Sly and Vilapakkam (1981) suggested that the result might just be an artifact of the way that the display and the response keys were arranged: if the left key is green and the right key is red, then a display that shows a green patch on the left side or a red patch on the right side matches the arrangement of the keys. On the other hand, a display that shows a red patch on the left and a green patch on the right does not. They called this display-control correspondence, suggesting  that people reach faster when the displays and controls correspond than when they do not. This would give the appearance of a reverse irrelevant S-R consistency effect.

However, Kornblum and Stevens (1999) replicated the conditions for the Hedge and Marsh (1975) task with auditory stimuli and verbal responses. Stimuli were the words “boot” and “gate” spoken at either a high pitch or a low pitch. Subjects had to respond to either the pitch (making the word irrelevant) or the word (making the pitch irrelevant), by making one of two responses: saying the word “boot” at a high pitch or the word “gate” at a low pitch. This task has the same structure and dimensional overlap as the standard Hedge and Marsh task, making it a Type 5 task in the Dimensional Overlap Taxonomy. However, there was naturally no display and there were no controls in the experiment, and therefore there could be no display-control correspondence. Despite the fact that this task had no display or controls, both the regular S-R consistency effect (for compatible mappings) and the reversed S-R consistency effect (for incompatible mappings) were obtained. (See also DeJong, Liang, & Lauber, 1994, for another attempt to remove display-control correspondence from the task.)

Despite initial suspicions, the reverse S-R consistency effect has also been replicated under a wide variety of conditions and manipulations (e.g. Berbner, 1979; DeJong, Liang & Lauber, 1994; Hasbroucq & Guiard, 1991; Lu & Proctor, 1994; Smith & Brebner, 1983; Zhang, 1999). A number of explanations have been suggested to account for this reversal of the S-R consistency effect in the Hedge & Marsh task, although it is still a matter of much debate.

It should be pointed out that a number of studies have incorrectly claimed that they replicate the Hedge and Marsh task in the auditory domain (e.g. Arend & Wandmacher, 1987; Proctor & Pick, 1999;Ragot & Guiard, 1992). In these tasks, the relevant stimuli, irrelevant stimuli, and responses are all characterized by spatial location. For example, the word “left” or “right” might be spoken into the left or the right ear, requiring a response of a left or right key press. In these tasks, all three dimensions overlap with one another, including the two stimulus dimensions, which are both spatial. As a result, these are Type 8 tasks in the dimensional overlap taxonomy and should be considered variants of the Stroop task, not variants of the Hedge and Marsh task.

 


 

NOTE: Sometimes you will see researchers use the term “Simon task” to refer to this task. However, in the Dimensional Overlap taxonomy, the standard Simon task is not a Type 5 task: it is a Type 3 task. Although the standard Simon task does have an irrelevant stimulus dimension (usually location) that overlaps with the response, it does not have any overlap between the relevant stimulus dimension and the response. In a traditional Simon task, the mapping between stimulus and response is completely arbitrary. The dimensional overlap model therefore contends that the cognitive processing in the Simon task and the Hedge and Marsh task are fundamentally different, because of this difference in relevant stimulus-response overlap.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

The Simon Task

The Simon Task is a choice reaction time task where there is dimensional overlap between the irrelevant stimulus and the response. In the dimensional overlap taxonomy, it is considered a Type 3 task.

J. Richard Simon (1969; Simon & Rudell, 1967; see also Lu & Proctor, 1995; Simon, 1990; Umilta & Nicoletti, 1990) studied the effects of compatibility between a non-spatial stimulus in a location that was irrelevant,  and a location-defined response.  In a typical Simon task, subjects are shown a letter (or some other stimulus) on either the left or the right side of the display. Subjects are told to press either a left key or a right key based on the identity of the stimulus (e.g. what letter it is). The location of the stimulus is irrelevant to the task, but it can be either consistent with the location of the response (e.g. a letter requiring a right key press appearing on the right side of the screen) or inconsistent with it (e.g. a letter requiring a right key press appearing on the left side of the screen). Responses are faster and more accurate for consistent than for inconsistent trials. The difference in reaction time is called the Simon Effect.

The Simon task

Simon tasks permit a great deal of variation while still yielding the same consistency effect. For example, auditory stimuli are often used, presented in either the left ear or the right ear (e.g. Mewaldt, Connelly & Simon, 1980; Simon & Acosta, 1982; Simon, Craft, & Webster, 1973; Simon & Small, 1969). When visual stimuli are used, the irrelevant stimulus set is usually horizontal position, but can also be vertical position (e.g. Ladavas & Moscovitch, 1984; Nicoletti & Umilta, 1984, 1985; Proctor & Reeve, 1986; Umilta & Nicoletti, 1985), or even non-spatial attributes such as letter or word (e.g. Kornblum & Lee, 1995; Zhang & Kornblum, 1998).

Simon tasks are also occasionally based on semantic overlap between the irrelevant stimulus and the response. For example, subjects may be told to respond to a letter that is presented along with an arrow that is pointing to the left or the right. In this case, the arrow is irrelevant to the response, but can be either consistent (e.g. a left-pointing arrow on a trial requiring a left-side key press) or inconsistent (e.g. a left-pointing arrow on a trial requiring a right-side key press) with the response. This also produces the usual S-R consistency effect.

 


 

NOTE: Sometimes you will see researchers use the term “Simon task” to refer to cases where both the stimuli and the responses are characterized by both position and color, for example by asking subjects to press a green key that is on the left side or a red key that is on the right side. In the Dimensional Overlap taxonomy, this is not a Type 3 task: it is a Type 5 task, like the Hedge & Marsh task. Even though it does have overlap between the irrelevant stimulus location and the response location, there is also overlap between the relevant stimulus color and the response color. The dimensional overlap model therefore contends that the cognitive processing in these tasks is fundamentally different from the cognitive processing involved in a standard Simon task, because of the addition of overlap between the relevant stimulus and the response dimension.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

Cross-Modal Tasks

Cross-modal Tasks are a type of choice reaction time task that use structural overlap between stimulus dimensions of different sensory modalities. As a result, there is dimensional overlap between the irrelevant stimulus and the relevant stimulus, but no dimensional overlap with the responses. In the dimensional overlap taxonomy, these are considered to be Type 4 tasks. Other Type 4 tasks include the Flanker task and the Stroop-like task.

Robert Melara and Lawrence Marks (1990; Marks, 1987; Melara, 1989) are two of the first to study stimulus-stimulus consistency effects using cross-modal tasks. In a typical cross-modal task, subjects are told to press a left key or a right key depending on the brightness of a stimulus light. In conjunction with the stimulus light, subjects hear a tone of either a high or a low pitch, or a loud or a soft volume. The stimulus dimensions of brightness, pitch, and volume are not perceptually similar, and no specific level of brightness has an associative link with any particular pitch or loudness of sound. However, all of these dimensions can be rank-ordered from “low” to “high” along a continuum. As a result, the relationship between the elements of the relevant stimulus set (high and low brightness) and the relationship between the elements of the irrelevant stimulus set (high or low pitch or volume) allows them to be paired. Thus, although the tone is irrelevant to the task, it can be either consistent (e.g. a bright light paired with a loud sound) or inconsistent (e.g. a bright light paired with a soft sound) with the light. Responses are faster and more accurate for consistent stimuli than inconsistent stimuli.

Cross-Modal Task

This type of task validates the generality of the dimensional overlap theory. If the stimulus-stimulus consistency effect only appeared in Flanker tasks, a theory could be proposed that the effect was caused directly by a perceptual mechanism. If the stimulus-stimulus consistency effect only appeared in Stroop-like tasks, a theory could be put forth that was based on individual learned associations (such as the learned association between a color and its color word). The fact that the effect appears in cross-modal tasks, however, demonstrates that it is truly the dimensional overlap–in the most abstract sense–between the two stimulus dimensions that is key to the appearance of the consistency effect.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

The Stroop-like Task

The Stroop-like Task is illustrated by a choice reaction time task that uses color-word stimuli written in colored ink, the ink  is usually the relevant stimulus, but assigns them to key-press responses. As a result, there is dimensional overlap between the irrelevant and the relevant stimulus, but no dimensional overlap with the responses. In the dimensional overlap taxonomy, it is considered a Type 4 task. Other Type 4 tasks include the Flanker task and Cross-Modal tasks.

A number of researchers have explored performance in Stroop-like tasks (e.g. Hommel, 1998, exp. 1; Kahneman & Henick, 1981; Keele, 1972; Kornblum, 1994; Kornblum et al., 1999; Simon & Berbaum, 1990; Simon, Paullin, Overmyer & Berbaum, 1985, exp. 2). Typically, subjects are told to press a left key or a right key depending on the color of the stimulus. The color word is irrelevant, but can be either consistent (e.g. “blue” written in blue ink) or inconsistent (e.g. “green” written in blue ink) with the color. Responses are faster and more accurate for consistent stimuli than for inconsistent stimuli.

Stroop-like task

Unlike in the Flanker task, where the relevant and irrelevant stimuli are perceptually similar, this task only contains conceptual overlap between the two stimulus sets: color and color words are only linked through a learned symbolic association.

This task is called “Stroop-like” because the stimuli used in the task are the same as the stimuli first used by Stroop (1935) for the Stroop task. However, these tasks are different from actual Stroop tasks, because in Stroop tasks there is also overlap between the stimulus dimensions and the response dimension. You will sometimes see papers describing these tasks as “Stroop tasks”, disregarding the fact that the responses in these tasks have no overlap with color. According to Dimensional Overlap model, this difference is critical: cognitive processing in Stroop-like tasks and Stroop tasks is fundamentally different, based on the presence or absence of dimensional overlap with the response dimension.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

The Flanker Task

The Flanker Task, also sometimes called a Eriksen Task, is a choice reaction time task where there is dimensional overlap between the irrelevant stimulus and the relevant stimulus. In the dimensional overlap taxonomy, it is considered a Type 4 task. Other Type 4 tasks include the Stroop-like task and Cross-Modal tasks.

Charles Eriksen (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974; see also Eriksen, 1995; Eriksen & Schultz, 1979; Cohen & Shoup, 1993, 1997; Miller, 1982, 1991) studied the effects of distracting “flanker” stimuli that appear around or near a relevant target stimulus. In a typical Eriksen task, subjects are shown a string of letters on a screen, and are told to press a left key or a right key depending on what letter appears in the center of the screen (the target letter). The surrounding flanker letters are irrelevant, but can be either consistent (“HHH”) or inconsistent (“SHS”) with the target. Responses are faster and more accurate for consistent stimuli than for inconsistent stimuli. The difference in reaction time is called the Eriksen effect or the flanker effect.

Flanker Task

Targets and flankers are both defined as values along the same dimension: in the example above, it is letter. As a result, the relevant and irrelevant stimulus have perceptual and conceptual overlap. Moreover, because the overlap is between stimulus properties, consistency is a property of the stimuli themselves, and is independent of the mapping instructions. However, because different letters are usually assigned to different responses, a confound arises in most tasks: when the stimulus is S-S consistent, the response assigned to the flankers is different from the response assigned to the target. This confound is central to the debate about different explanations of the S-S consistency effect.

Eriksen tasks permit a large number of variations, while still producing the same effect. For example, although flankers and targets are generally letters, they can also be words or shapes or symbols (e.g. Hommel, 1995; Shaffer & LaBerge, 1979; Zhang & Kornblum, 1998). Also,  although flankers are usually presented to the left and right of the target, they can also be presented above or below the target, or in other patterns around it (e.g. Eriksen & Hoffman, 1973; Eriksen & St. James, 1986; Eriksen & Murphy, 1987; Yantis & Johnston, 1990; Zhang & Kornblum, 1998).

The key factor that all flanker tasks have in common is the perceptual dimensional overlap between the irrelevant stimulus and the relevant stimulus.


NOTE: There are some times when you will see people use the term “Flanker task” to refer to tasks where left and right arrows are assigned to left and right key-presses, and each target arrow is flanked by irrelevant flanker arrows that are either consistent or inconsistent with the target arrow. In the Dimensional Overlap taxonomy, this is not a Type 4 task: it is a Type 8 task, like the Stroop task. Even though this task has flankers, the dimensional overlap model contends that cognitive processing in this task is fundamentally different from processing in the standard Eriksen task, because it adds overlap between the stimulus dimensions and the response dimension.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
formats

The Stimulus-Response Compatibility Task

The Stimulus-Response Compatibility Task, also called the SRC Task  is the type of choice reaction time task where there is dimensional overlap between the relevant stimulus set and the response set.  In the dimensional overlap taxonomy, it is considered a  Type 2 task.

The results of performance with SRC tasks were first reported by Paul Fitts (Fitts & Seeger, 1953; Fitts & Deininger, 1954), who called them “Stimulus Response Compatibility Effects”.   In both papers the tasks  were eight-choice  reaction time tasks in which subjects had to move a stylus from a home position to one of eight target positions.  Since that time, many experiments have been run that have confirmed Fitts’ original results, and have used non-spatial stimulus and response attributes.  Thus was  the field of stimulus response compatibility born.

An example of this type of task is described next.  A subject is sitting at a table, on which  is a screen showing  four small,  horizontally arranged squares.  Inside each sqare is a small circle that functions as a light.   A stimulus consists of one of these lights going on.  In front of the screen are four keys.  The subject’s index and middle fingers of each hand are resting on these keys.  When the mapping instructions assign a response to its corresponding stimulus light (congruent mapping), people are much faster and more accurate than when the instructions assign a response to a non-corresponding stimulus light (incongruent mapping).

This effect is  extremely robust, and happens for a wide variety of stimuli and responses. People are slower to say “blue” in response to a red square than they are when saying “red” in response to a red square, even though there is no perceptual similarity between the stimulus and the response. The effect even shows up when the relationship is very abstract: for example, people can be told to respond to lights of different brightness by pressing buttons with different levels of force, and they are faster when they are told to press a button hard for a bright light than when they are told to press a button hard for a dim light.

The key factor that all mapping tasks have in common is the dimensional overlap between the relevant stimulus and the response.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn