References 315Merkel, J. (1885). Die zeitliche Verhaltnisse de Willenstatigkeit
[The temporal relations of activities of the will]. Philosophische
Studien, 2,73–127.
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of
executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance:
Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena.
Psychological Review, 104,749–791.
Michaels, C. F., & Schilder, S. (1991). Stimulus-response
compatibilities between vertically oriented stimuli and horizon-
tally oriented responses. Perception & Psychophysics, 49,
342–348.
Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human
information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
8,273–296.
Miller, J. (1988). Discrete and continuous models of human
information processing: Theoretical distinctions and empirical
results.Acta Psychologica, 67,191–257.
Mordkoff, J. T. (1996). Selective attention and internal constraints:
There is more to the flanker effect than biased contingencies. In
A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.),Converging
operations in the study of visual selective attention(pp. 483–502).
Washington D C: American Psychological Association.
Mowbray, G. H., & Rhoades, M. V. (1959). On the reduction of
choice reaction times with practice. Quarterly Journal of
Psychology, 11,16–23.
Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexi-
cal memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and
limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 106,226–254.
Neill, W. T., & Valdes, L. A. (1992). Persistence of negative prim-
ing: Steady state or decay? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18,565–576.
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill
acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.),
Cognitive skills and their acquisition(pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà,
C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the
body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 8,644–673.
Nissen, M. J., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements
of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive
Psychology, 19,1–32.
Osman, A., Kornblum, S., & Meyer, D. E. (1986). The point of no
return in choice reaction time: Controlled and ballistic stages of
response preparation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 12,243–258.
Osman, A., Lou, L., Muller-Gethmann, H., Rinkenauer, G., Mattes,
S., & Ulrich, R. (2000). Mechanisms of speed-accuracy tradeoff:
Evidence from covert motor processes. Biological Psychology,
51,173–199.
Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in
information-processing research. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.),
Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and
cognition(pp. 41–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Park, J., & Kanwisher, N. (1994). Negative priming for spatial loca-
tions: Identity mismatching, not distractor inhibition. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
20,613–623.
Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial
repetition effects in speeded choice task.Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17,33–48.
Payne, S. J. (1995). Naïve judgments of stimulus-response compat-
ibility. Human Factors, 37,495–506.
Posner, M. I., Klein, R., Summers, J., & Buggie, S. (1973). On the
selection of signals. Memory & Cognition, 1,2–12.
Prinz, W. (1997). Why Donders has led us astray. In B. Hommel &
W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compat-
ibility(pp. 247–267). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1993). Do the same stimulus-response
relations influence choice reactions initially and after practice?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 19,922–930.
Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C.-H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location
information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction
tasks.Memory & Cognition, 27,63–77.
Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the
assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger response.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 11,623–639.
Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1986). Salient-feature coding
operations in spatial precuing tasks.Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: Human Perception & Performance, 12,277–285.
Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.). (1990).Stimulus-response com-
patibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2002). Eliminating, magnifying, and re-
versing spatial compatibility effects with mixed location-relevant
and irrelevant trials. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.),Common
mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance,
XIX(pp. 443–473).New York: Oxford University Press.
Reeve, G. T., & Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation
of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 10,541–553.
Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L. G., & Umiltà, C. (1986). What is
crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62,89–100.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Cost of a predictable switch
between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: General, 124,207–231.
Rosenbloom, P. S., & Newell, A. (1987). An integrated computa-
tional model of stimulus-response compatibility and practice. In