Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection

Lien, Mei-Ching; Proctor, Robert W. · 2002 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/bf03196277

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This review paper by Lien and Proctor (2002) investigates the nature of response selection by synthesizing literature on stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) effects and the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect. The authors address a theoretical discrepancy: while SRC research in single-task contexts suggests two distinct response-selection routes (automatic activation and intentional translation), major PRP models, particularly the response-selection bottleneck (RSB) model, treat response selection as a single, serial processing stage. The study aims to resolve this conflict by examining how SRC effects manifest within dual-task PRP paradigms, arguing that joint analysis provides critical insights into response-selection mechanisms that single-task studies overlook. The authors conduct a comprehensive review of empirical findings and theoretical models. They analyze SRC effects in single-task performance, detailing set-level and element-level compatibility, the influence of spatial mappings, practice effects, and the role of irrelevant stimulus information (e.g., the Simon and Eriksen flanker effects). They evaluate theoretical accounts such as the dimensional overlap model and action–concept translation model. Crucially, the review focuses on studies that manipulate SRC within the PRP paradigm, where two tasks are performed in succession with varying stimulus onset asynchronies. This design allows the authors to assess whether the processing of Task 1 and Task 2 is truly serial and independent, as the RSB model assumes, or if interactive processes occur during response selection. The review finds that evidence from SRC studies in PRP contexts contradicts the strict serial bottleneck assumption. Specifically, the PRP effect persists even when tasks are highly compatible, and significant cross-talk occurs when stimuli and responses for the two tasks share similarities. These findings indicate that task processing is more interactive than the RSB model suggests. The authors conclude that response selection comprises two distinct phases: response activation and final response selection. Response activation is an automatic, parallel process driven by long-term and short-term task-defined stimulus–response associations. In contrast, final response selection is an intentional act that remains a bottleneck, restricted to processing one task at a time, even for highly practiced and compatible tasks. The significance of this work lies in its refinement of cognitive architecture models. By distinguishing between automatic response activation and intentional final selection, the authors provide a more accurate account of how humans manage dual-task demands. They argue that assuming response selection in dual-task contexts mirrors single-task performance is unreasonable. The findings imply that future research should systematically investigate SRC effects within PRP paradigms to further elucidate the interactive nature of response selection. This distinction clarifies why certain automatic processes can occur in parallel while final commitment to a response remains serial, offering a nuanced understanding of human information processing limitations.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dual task multitasking