-transparent.png){kind=logo}
Michaels reported a compatibility effect in which responses were fastest at the destination of a moving stimulus; she interpreted this "destination" compatibility effect in terms of catching actions "afforded" by the stimulus motion. The present study evaluated implications of the catching-affordance account and compared them with those of an account based on spatial coding of relative direction. The destination compatibility effect was obtained when the responses were keypresses rather that catching movements of a joystick and regardless of whether the stimulus expanded, contracted, or only changed location. This effect was a function of relative rather than absolute location of the responses. A similar compatibility effect was obtained when destinations were designated by static arrow stimuli. The results are inconsistent with the catching-affordance account and are best explained by the coding of relative direction.
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
January 2024,
Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006),
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
January 1986,
Vision research,
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
August 2017,
Psychonomic bulletin & review,
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
January 1985,
The International journal of neuroscience,
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
February 1972,
Vision research,
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
May 1995,
The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology,
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
January 1979,
Vision research,
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
April 2018,
Scientific reports,
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
January 2016,
Frontiers in psychology,
R W Proctor, and
T Van Zandt, and
C H Lu, and
D J Weeks
January 1987,
Biological cybernetics,
