T. Gilmour Reeve

On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses.

Most studies that examined the precuing of motor responses have been interpreted as indicating that response specification is a variable-order process. An apparent exception to this conclusion was obtained by Miller (1982) for the preparation of discrete finger responses. Precuing was beneficial only when the precued responses were on the same hand, suggesting that response specification occurs in a fixed order, with hand specified before other aspects of the response. Three experiments examined this discrepant finding for discrete finger responses. Experiment 1 demonstrated that with sufficient time (3 s), all combinations of responses can be equally well prepared. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the precuing advantage for same-hand responses at shorter precuing intervals is due to strategic and decision factors, not to an ability to prepare these responses more efficiently. Preparation of finger responses, thus, also appears to be variable. This conclusion poses problems for Millers extension of the precuing procedure to the evaluation of discrete versus continuous models of information processing.

Compatibility Effects in the Assignment of Symbolic Stimuli to Discrete Finger Responses

Reeve and Proctor (1984) demonstrated that a precuing advantage obtained for certain pairs of finger responses in a four-choice task is a type of spatial-compa tibility effect. This compatibility effect was attributed by Reeve and Proctor to translation processes that relate stimuli to responses. An advantage similar to that obtained with spatial-location stimuli also has been obtained with two-dimensional symbolic stimuli, which have no spatial-location attribute. Miller (1982a) presented evidence that the advantage obtained with symbolic stimuli is not a compatibility effect, and he argued that a translation account cannot explain this advantage (Miller, 1985). The present study used various response sets to demonstrate that the symbolic stimulus sets do show compatibility effects similar to those shown by the spatiallocation stimuli. The results were interpreted as supporting a salient-features coding principle in which both stimuli and responses are coded in terms of the salient features of each, with the translation processes based on the relations between the stimulus and response codes. In a now classic study, Fitts and Seeger (1953) demonstrated that the time to respond to a particular stimulus depends not only on the properties of the set of stimuli or the properties of the set of responses but also on the relation between the two. Fitts and Seeger examined nine stimulus-response ensembles, involving all possible pairings of three spatial stimulus arrangements and three spatial response arrangements, and found that responses were faster and more accurate when the spatial properties of the stimulus set matched those of the response set. These effects involving stimulus-response relations were referred to by Fitts and Seeger as stimulus-response compatibility effects. Since this seminal study of stimulus-response compatibility, considerable research has

The Salient-Features Coding Principle for Spatial-and Symbolic-Compatibility Effects

Publisher Summary This chapter describes the salient-features coding principle for spatial and symbolic-compatibility effects. Stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility effects typically are attributed to a stage of human-information processing that is referred to as S-R translation, response selection, or decision. The primary function of this stage is to translate between the codes that are used to represent the stimulus and response sets. Situations for which S-R translation is minimal are regarded as compatible, whereas situations for which it is not are regarded as incompatible. With spatial-location stimuli, S-R compatibility is a function of the extent to which the assignment of stimulus locations to response locations maintains a direct relation. Spatial coding also is apparent when symbolic stimuli are assigned to left and right response locations, but the stimuli occur in either of two locations that are irrelevant for determining the correct response. It is observed that as for the compatibility effect that occurs with a normal hand placement in two-choice tasks, the relation between stimulus locations and response locations is confounded with the relation between stimulus locations and fingers when only the adjacent-hand placement is used.

Salience of stimulus and response features in choice-reaction tasks

A pattern of differential reaction time (RT) benefits obtained in spatial-precuing tasks has been attributed to translation processes that operate on mental codes formed to represent the-stimulus and response sets. According to the salient-features coding principle, the codes are based on the salient stimulus and response features, with RTs being fastest when the two sets of features correspond. Three experiments are reported in which the stimulus and response sets were manipulated using Gestalt grouping principles. In the first two experiments, stimuli and responses were grouped according to spatial proximity, whereas in the last experiment, they were grouped according to similarity. With both types of manipulations, the grouping of the stimulus set systematically affected the pattern of precuingbenefits. Thus, in these experiments, the organization of the stimulus set was the primary determinant of the features selected for coding the stimulus and response sets in the translation process.

The acquisition of task-specific productions and modifications of declarative representations in spatial-precuing tasks.

The stimulus-response translation stage of human information processing plays a mediating role of relating stimuli to assigned responses. The translation stage has been implicated as the locus of a pattern of differential precuing benefits obtained in spatial-choice tasks (Proctor & Reeve, 1986; Reeve & Proctor, 1985): When pairs of finger responses from the middle and index fingers of each hand are precued, the two leftmost and two rightmost responses show the greatest benefit. This pattern of differential benefits, which occurs regardless of whether the hand placement is adjacent or overlapped, has been attributed to spatially coded representations of the stimulus and response sets in the translation stage. Experiment 1 evaluated whether the mediating role of the translation stage changes with practice. All precued pairs of responses showed equivalent benefits in the last of three sessions. This result indicates that the spatial representations used initially to translate between stimuli and responses have been altered to be more efficient or have been replaced by productions that directly specify fingers. Experiment 2 used a fourth session in which subjects were transferred from the overlapped hand placement to the adjacent placement, or vice versa. For subjects in the former condition, the pattern of differential precuing benefits reappeared in the transfer session. This lack of transfer is consistent with the hypothesis that task-specific productions develop with practice that directly relate stimuli to fingers. For subjects who practiced with the adjacent placement and switched to the overlapped placement, only a nonsignificant tendency existed for the pattern of differential precuing benefits to reappear. This failure of the pattern to reappear could indicate that spatial representations continue to be used to translate between stimuli and responses. Alternatively, as occurs with the overlapped placement, task-specific productions could be acquired that relate stimuli to fingers. If so, the failure of the pattern of differential precuing benefits to reappear would reflect a modification in the representations that are used for translation in the transfer session. Specifically, if subjects were coding the stimulus and response sets on the basis of the distinction between the two hands, as well as the spatial distinction, the differential benefits would be minimized because hand coding should benefit different responses from those benefitted by spatial coding. These alternative explanations were evaluated in Experiment 3 by having subjects who practiced with the adjacent placement switch to a placement in which the hands were crossed completely.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)The stimulus-response translation stage of human information processing plays a mediating role of relating stimuli to assigned responses. The translation stage has been implicated as the locus of a pattern of differential precuing benefits obtained in spatial-choice tasks (Proctor & Reeve, 1986; Reeve & Proctor, 1985): When pairs of finger responses from the middle and index fingers of each hand are precued, the two leftmost and two rightmost responses show the greatest benefit. This pattern of differential benefits, which occurs regardless of whether the hand placement is adjacent or overlapped, has been attributed to spatially coded representations of the stimulus and response sets in the translation stage. Experiment 1 evaluated whether the mediating role of the translation stage changes with practice. All precued pairs of responses showed equivalent benefits in the last of three sessions. This result indicates that the spatial representations used initially to translate between stimuli and responses have been altered to be more efficient or have been replaced by productions that directly specify fingers. Experiment 2 used a fourth session in which subjects were transferred from the overlapped hand placement to the adjacent placement, or vice versa. For subjects in the former condition, the pattern of differential precuing benefits reappeared in the transfer session. This lack of transfer is consistent with the hypothesis that task-specific productions develop with practice that directly relate stimuli to fingers. For subjects who practiced with the adjacent placement and switched to the overlapped placement, only a nonsignificant tendency existed for the pattern of differential precuing benefits to reappear. This failure of the pattern to reappear could indicate that spatial representations continue to be used to translate between stimuli and responses. Alternatively, as occurs with the overlapped placement, task-specific productions could be acquired that relate stimuli to fingers. If so, the failure of the pattern of differential precuing benefits to reappear would reflect a modification in the representations that are used for translation in the transfer session. Specifically, if subjects were coding the stimulus and response sets on the basis of the distinction between the two hands, as well as the spatial distinction, the differential benefits would be minimized because hand coding should benefit different responses from those benefitted by spatial coding. These alternative explanations were evaluated in Experiment 3 by having subjects who practiced with the adjacent placement switch to a placement in which the hands were crossed completely.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Nonmotoric translation processes in the preparation of discrete finger responses: A rebuttal of Miller's (1985) analysis.

Miller (1982) found a same-hand advantage for precuing discrete finger responses and assumed that the advantage was a motoric, response preparation effect. In a series of experiments, Reeve and Proctor (1984) examined the precuing procedure used by Miller and concluded that the same-hand advantage is due to nonmotoric decision (stimulus-response translation) processes. Miller (1985) questioned our conclusions on the grounds that our procedures introduced new response sets and that the translation explanation cannot account for the full set of his results. These arguments are evaluated in the present observation and are found not to be supported strongly. Miller also proposed a reinterpretati on of our results that attributes the advantage to spatial coding of responses. Although his coding account is very similar to the explanation that we previously proposed, his account attributes the coding operations to response preparation processes, whereas our account assigns such operations to decision processes. Miller reported a new precuing experiment that he interpreted as support for his response preparation account. However, we derived differential predictions from the response preparation and translation accounts and found Millers data to be more consistent with our translation account. Therefore, our conclusion still is that the samehand advantage is attributable to nonmotoric processes.

Determinants of two-choice reaction-time patterns for same-hand and different-hand finger pairings.

Several studies of two-choice reaction times have compared situations in which the alternative responses are fingers from one hand (the same-hand pairing) or one finger from each hand (the different-hand pairing). Two patterns of results have been obtained: (a) equivalent reaction times for the same-hand and different-hand pairings and (b) faster reaction times for the different-hand pairing. Previously, these outcomes have been attributed to the adoption of different response-preparation strategies when response pairs are constant (low response-pair uncertainty) versus when they are varied from trial to trial (high response-pair uncertainty). However, response-pair uncertainty has been confounded with whether only the two relevant fingers were placed on response keys or whether more than two fingers were. Experiment 1 of the present study demonstrated that finger placement, rather than response-pair uncertainty, determines which reaction-time pattern is obtained. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated the nature of the finger-placement effect by placing the fingers that were irrelevant for the task on response keys or on immovable blocks. The experiments indicated that the crucial factor is the number of fingers on active response keys, with the type of preparation being different when only two fingers are on keys rather than when more than two fingers are.

A Review and Evaluation of Doctoral Programs 2000-2004 by the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education

The results from a U.S. national survey of doctoral programs in kinesiology and physical education covering the years 2000-2004 are presented. The survey was conducted by the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education with all 61 institutions with doctoral programs (32 institutions provided complete data, 52%) invited to participate. Results of the survey included an overall final T-score used for ranking of institutions. Quantitative data on faculty (weighted 66% in the scoring) and student indices (weighted 34% in the scoring) were used to develop the final T-scores as well as T-scores for component data. In addition, average data for all variables are presented by the T-score categories of 60 and above, 50-59, 40-49, and below 40. The American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education plans to conduct this survey and reporting process at 5-year intervals.

Research on Stimulus-Response Compatibility: Toward a Comprehensive Account

Publisher Summary This chapter examines the researches on stimulus-response ((S-R) compatibility. Studies of the role of mental representation in S-R compatibility have focused primarily on coding explanations. Compatibility is not merely a function of physical correspondence, but of a correspondence between abstract mental codes that are formed to represent the stimulus and response sets. The psychophysiological research has focused primarily on the P300 wave. The P300 latency has been shown to be influenced strongly by stimulus processing. The evidence regarding whether the P300 is affected by response-selection processes is far less clear. Some studies have found little or no effect of such processes on the P300 latency, whereas other studies have shown stronger effects. Speculation about the neurophysiological basis of S-R compatibility effects has taken two forms. The compatibility effects have been used as estimates of interhemispheric transmission time. The studies that explicitly investigated the role of S-R compatibility in motor performance have been concerned primarily with controlling compatibility effects, so that motor-programming effects could be studied. The distinction between response selection and motor programming by showing the independence of compatibility effects from movement-precuing effects is also elaborated.

A triphasic approach to the acquisition of response-selection skill

Publisher Summary This chapter explores that the shift in psychology from a stimulus-response (S-R) approach to an information-processing approach has led to a greater interest in the cognitive processes that intervene between stimuli and responses. One method used to investigate these intervening processes is the chronometric method, for which measures of reaction time (RT) are the primary dependent variables. Through examining the effects of various manipulations on RT, the nature of the underlying representations and processes are determined. The resulting research has converged to indicate several distinct stages of processing such as: stages of information processing, the translation stage, and phases of skill acquisition. The initial phase of skill acquisition involves forming a representation of the task. At least two major factors contribute to the representation that is formed: (1) the knowledge that the subject brings to the task, and (2) his or her cognitive coding of the task situation. From the standpoint of understanding the nature of the cognitive phase, the latter of these factors is of primary concern. The chapter discusses that research presents the coding used in the cognitive phase to translate between stimuli and responses is complex and dynamic. This coding is influenced by the salient features of the stimulus and response sets, with the efficiency of the translation processes being a function of the correspondence among the features. Thus, response tendencies have been shown to be influenced by manipulations of the relative salience within stimulus sets, the correspondence of stimulus-set features to response-set features, and fundamental spatial representational factors. The coding of the task environment is of primary importance in determining performance in the initial, cognitive phase of skill acquisition.