The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Like many other forms of SRC in which participants respond to static symbolic stimuli (De Jong et al., 1994; Eimer et al., 1995), imitative compatibility effects are attributed to automatic activation of the stimulus-compatible motor representation.”
From To imitate or not: Avoiding imitation involves preparatory inhibition of motor resonance (2014) · cites this paper as De Jong et al., 1994
In the citing paper
“In sum, the evidence from these two experiments suggests that the processing of spatial compatibility and automatic imitation are dissociable at two different levels in dual processing models of S-R compatibility (e.g., DeJong et al., 1994;Tagliabue, Zorzi, Umilta, & Bassignani, 2000).”
From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as DeJong et al., 1994
In the citing paper
“Consistent with previous interpretations (e.g., DeJong, Liang, & Lauber, 1994;Wühr & Biebl, 2009), we surmise that responding to the stimulus cue opposite to the one that appears on the screen requires a logical recoding of the relevant stimulus and that this recoding carries-over to the irrelevant stimulus as well.”
From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as DeJong, Liang, & Lauber, 1994
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anterior cingulate cortex and conflict detection: an update of theory and data
Carter, C. S., & van Veen, V. (2007) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.7.4.367 · Cited by 1,056
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03210959 · Cited by 962
“…considerable data are interpretable in terms of the temporal overlap hypothesis, the findings mentioned earlier of Lu and Proctor (1994) and De Jong et al. (1994) with the Hedge and Marsh task, in which the response keys are colored, indicate that the hypothesis cannot account for all…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialExecutive control of visual attention in dual-task situations.
Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.393 · Cited by 788
Ullsperger, M., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2001) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0935 · Cited by 702
The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506280042000144 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 731-750
- ISSN
- 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1277
- OpenAlex
- W4248568169
- Cited by
- 806
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 5.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Keywords
- automaticity, dual-process models, spatial attention, stimulus-response compatibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
