China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Cross-Cultural Differences on Cognitive Task Performance: The Influence of Stimulus Familiarity
Published in Walter J. Lonner, Dale L. Dinnel, Deborah K. Forgays, Susanna A. Hayes, Merging Past, Present, and Future in Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2020
Corine J. Sonke, Ype H. Poortinga, Jan H. J. De Kuijer
A concept that captures the relevance of the research on stimulus-response compatibility for cross-cultural comparison is “population stereotypes” (Fitts & Posner, 1967; Alluisi & Warm, 1990), i.e., the preferred assignment of response symbols to stimulus symbols shared by a particular group or cultural population. Frequency of exposure is an important determinant of such stereotypes and, as shown by the above mentioned research of Shiffrin and Schneider (1977), the effects of practice can continue for a long time, even under conditions of (controlled) frequent exposure1.
Visual Perception and Human–Computer Interaction in Surgical Augmented and Virtual Reality Environments
Published in Terry M. Peters, Cristian A. Linte, Ziv Yaniv, Jacqueline Williams, Mixed and Augmented Reality in Medicine, 2018
Roy Eagleson, Sandrine de Ribaupierre
With regards to the overall conversion of “relative” locations of the workspace objects, cursor, user tools, and fingertips to the reference frame of motor control, we can acknowledge the amazingly adaptive nature of the human perceptual-motor system. It is extremely adept in its ability to calibrate (and dynamically recalibrate) the mapping between the spatial reference frame of the sensory inputs to the reference frame of the configuration, kinematics, and dynamical control space of the motor and action system. On the other hand, there is a fairly tight “sweet spot” in terms of the S-R compatibility that must exist between these two spaces. Humans cannot adapt to completely arbitrary remapping of the input and output space. Put more frankly, “stimulus-response compatibility” should not be violated in the design of human–computer interfaces, especially not in the case of 3D immersive environments.
Caffeine and fatigue
Published in B.S. Gupta, Uma Gupta, Caffeine and Behavior, 2020
After a night of sleep deprivation with a maximum of 3 hours of sleep, Engleman and co-workers46 gave 11 medical students 5 doses of 200 mg every 2 hours between 07 00 h to 17 00 h. In the late afternoon, caffeine compared to placebo improved cognitive performance for all tests. After a recovery night the task performance scores of the next morning were still better in the caffeine group. The latter suggests that caffeine intake during a period of sleep deprivation need not go at the cost of a good night’s sleep, but may increase the efficiency of the arousal system, such that spared capacity of the system can be applied to subsequent tasks. Arousal, a concept ranging from extreme fatigue at one end to extreme excitement at the other, influences the stimulus evaluation system according to Humphreys and Revelle.47 The stimulus evaluation system and the response activating system represent two subsystems in the human information processing system.48 Since arousal helps rapid information processing, sleep deprivation or fatigue will affect the encoding and response activation negatively.49 Consequently, caffeine as a hypothesized antidote for fatigue must have beneficial effects on these stages in particular. This hypothesis was tested extensively by Lorist and co-workers.3 To ascertain whether caffeine would affect the specific stages of information processing, special attention was paid to manipulation of task variables. Task variables were stimulus-degradation, stimulus-response compatibility, and time-uncertainty, representing the encoding, response selection, and motor activation stages, respectively. After 12 hours of caffeine abstinence, the 30 regular coffee users were kept awake until 04 00 h. After 250 mg of caffeine, mood and task performance were assessed and event related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. The ERP data showed that in 24 of the 30 subjects, caffeine improved mood and task performance and had its effect predominantly on stimulus evaluation processes and response activation. This effect of caffeine was more pronounced after sleep deprivation. The results supported the hypothesis that sleep deprivation affects these stages of information processing especially.
The Influence of Visually Dangerous Information on Imitation in Children
Published in Journal of Motor Behavior, 2020
Increasingly, studies are showing that imitation and affordance affect one another (Bach, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2011; Ellis et al., 2013; González-Perilli & Ellis, 2015; Vainio, Symes, Ellis, Tucker, & Ottoboni, 2008; Zhao, 2019). For example, when participants were required to move a lever to the left or to the right according to the grip aperture of a left- or right-moving arm, the stimulus-response compatibility effect was observed only when the observed aperture grip was compatible with the size of an incidental object (Bach et al., 2011). Vainio et al. (2008) found similar results. Participants viewed an animated image of a hand making a precision or power grasp and were required to distinguish object attributes by responding with precision and power grasps. Congruency effect between object size and response type was only observed when the observed grasp image was in accordance with the size of target object.
Information presentation compatibility in a simple digital control panel design: eye-tracking study
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2018
The compatibility between stimuli and human responses was among multiple issues investigated extensively in the context of control panels. Probably one of the first systematic studies dealing with this problem was presented in a seminal work by Fitts and Seeger [21]. They studied square, circular and T-shaped stimuli along with the corresponding response templates. Other investigations in this regard were reported, e.g., by Chapanis and Lindenbaum [22], Fitts and Deininger [23], Michaels [24], Hsu and Peng [25] and Kornblum and Lee [26]. An extensive review of the stimulus–response compatibility studies is provided by Lien and Proctor [27], while a review of and possible explanations for the results about spatial coding for two-dimensional stimulus–response sets are presented by Rubichi et al. [28]. The body of literature dealing with these types of problems is still extending, especially in the field of general psychology. Recently, orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility was subject to investigation by Nishimura and Yokosawa [29]. Le Bars et al. [30] examined, among other things, how subliminal primes representing visual action effects influence various kinds of motor actions in relation to the stimulus–response compatibility. In turn, Dagaev et al. [31] in their two experiments investigated the stimulus–response compatibility while performing parallel mental tasks. Giesen et al. [32] focused on the modulating effect of a vicarious feedback on stimulus–response compatibility in a shared color categorization task, whereas Saccone et al. [33] demonstrated a dissociation between affordance and spatial compatibility effects. Some investigators involve oculographic data in this type of research. For instance, Ansorge [34] tried to explain the congruence effect induced by human gaze directions.
Training Motor Sequences: Effects of Speed and Accuracy Instructions
Published in Journal of Motor Behavior, 2019
Jonathan S. Barnhoorn, Stefan Panzer, Ben Godde, Willem B. Verwey
To examine the effect of instructions emphasizing either speed or accuracy, we instructed participants of the so-called speed group to practice a 3-key and a 6-key discrete key pressing sequence at a high rate while bothering little about errors. Participants of the accurate group practiced the same sequences, but they were told to be careful and prevent errors as much as possible. In the ensuing test phase, we examined whether motor sequencing skill was different for these two groups1. The test phase was identical for the two groups and included three conditions. The random condition involved 3- and 6-element sequences that differed on each trial. This condition was included to determine whether the instruction would strengthen response selection skill. This response selection skill may be better developed in the accurate than the speed group, but given the high stimulus-response compatibility large benefits were not expected. In the single-stimulus test condition participants executed the entire 3- and 6-key sequences they had been practicing in response to just the first stimulus of each sequence (cf. Verwey, 1999; Verwey, Abrahamse, Ruitenberg, Jiménez, & De Kleine, 2011). If the speed instruction had indeed stimulated the development of central-symbolic and motor chunk sequence representations, execution in the single-stimulus condition should be faster and more accurate for the speed than for the accurate group. Finally, the familiar condition of the test phase allowed participants to rely on sequence representations while also using key-specific stimuli – just like during practice. In earlier studies it has been argued that the execution of familiar sequences in which all key-specific stimuli are displayed, is based primarily on sequence representations but that key-specific stimuli are still used as well (Abrahamse et al., 2013; Verwey, 2001, 2003). At the outset it was not clear whether a greater reliance on key-specific stimuli in the accurate group could compensate for the expected stronger sequence representations in the speed group.