Cf. Michaels, DESTINATION COMPATIBILITY, AFFORDANCES, AND CODING RULES - A REPLY, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 19(5), 1993, pp. 1121-1127
Proctor, Van Zandt, Lu, and Weeks (1993) argued that the invocation of
affordances to explain stimulus-response (S-R) compatibilities in rea
ction time is not needed because left-fight direction compatibility, f
rom the coding rules approach, explains the apparent ''destination com
patibility'' effect of Michaels (1988). In this reply, an experiment d
emonstrates that destination compatibility can be shown even when cont
radicted by relative left-right motion. The second half of the article
addresses theoretical issues separating and joining these two approac
hes. It is argued that the domain of the affordance approach in S-R co
mpatibility is the guidance of action by information, whereas the doma
in of coding rules is S-R incompatibility and noncompatibility, situat
ions in which required responses are not afforded and rules must be in
voked. The manipulation of rules can mimic some of the consequences of
more fundamental perception-action couplings, but principles of the l
atter sort are needed.