English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Conde et al. (2011) reported a finding that their article title characterized as "stimulus affective valence reverses the spatial compatibility effect." In their study, participants performed a choice-reaction task in which the stimulus was a soccer player from their "Favorite" team or from a "Rival" team, presented in a left or right location. The team signaled whether a spatially compatible or incompatible keypress was to be made in response to the stimulus location. The Favorite team showed a benefit for the spatially compatible response, but the Rival team showed a benefit for the spatially incompatible response. In the present commentary, the data of Conde et al. are reorganized according to the two mixed-mapping conditions under which participants performed: Favorite→compatible/Rival→incompatible and Rival→compatible/Favorite→ incompatible. This reorganization shows the typical finding of no spatial compatibility effect for mixed mappings in both conditions but an overall advantage for the Favorite→compatible/Rival→incompatible mapping of teams to mapping rules. This compatibility effect for team preference to mapping rule may be a consequence of positive and negative affect, although other accounts are possible. Regardless of its basis, that compatibility effect did not modulate the spatial compatibility effect.

psychology and neuroscience

Stimulus affect valence may influence mapping-rule selection but does not reverse the spatial compatibility effect: Reinterpretation of Conde et al. (2011).