Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Spatial code interference on directional responses.

J H Bertera1

  • 1Schepens Eye Research Institute, MA 02114.

Spatial Vision
|January 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Eye movements and the span of the effective stimulus in visual search.

Perception & psychophysics·2000
Same author

Simulation of lacrimal gland output: a tear jet for replacing eye moisture in Sjögren's syndrome.

Advances in experimental medicine and biology·1994
Same author

Short-term, low-contrast visual acuity reduction associated with in vivo contact lens drying.

Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry·1992
Same author

The effect of simulated scotomas on visual search in normal subjects.

Investigative ophthalmology & visual science·1988
Same author

Latency of sequential eye movements: implications for reading.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·1983
Same author

The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading.

Perception & psychophysics·1982
Same journal

Comment on 'angle illusion on a picture's surface' by Hammad et al. (2008).

Spatial vision·2009
Same journal

Feature-based attentional modulation increases with stimulus separation in divided-attention tasks.

Spatial vision·2009
Same journal

Spatial distance between target and irrelevant patch modulates detection in a texture segmentation task.

Spatial vision·2009
Same journal

Inhibition related impairments of coherent motion perception in the attention-induced motion blindness paradigm.

Spatial vision·2009
Same journal

Recognition units in reading: backward masking experiments.

Spatial vision·2009
Same journal

Spatial-temporal modeling of interactive image interpretation.

Spatial vision·2009
See all related articles

Irrelevant spatial cues, like display position, slow down reaction times for both voice and manual responses. This interference occurs because the brain processes the irrelevant position faster than the relevant direction.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Neuroscience

Background:

  • Reaction time (RT) studies investigate cognitive processing speed.
  • Spatial cues can influence decision-making and response selection.
  • Understanding interference effects is crucial for designing efficient interfaces.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare interference from irrelevant position cues in voice and manual response tasks.
  • To determine if display position affects spatial (key-press) and non-spatial (voice) responses differently.
  • To analyze the processing speed of relevant direction cues versus irrelevant position cues.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized a reaction-time paradigm with voice and manual response options.
  • Subjects responded to arrow directions (left/right) with corresponding voice or key-press actions.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Irrelevant left/right display positions were manipulated to assess interference effects.

    • Main Results:

    • Irrelevant display position significantly increased response latency when mismatched with the required response (73 ms for manual, 59 ms for voice).
    • Position cues were processed faster than direction cues when presented alone.
    • Interference effects were observed in both spatial and non-spatial response modalities.

    Conclusions:

    • A common abstract mediator likely underlies left-right responses across different modalities.
    • Processing speed differences between relevant and irrelevant cues contribute to interference.
    • Irrelevant spatial information may occupy a limited-capacity processing channel, delaying the processing of relevant task cues.