Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 270–279 | Cite as

Inverting the Simon effect by intention

Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information
  • Bernhard Hommel
Article

Summary

The Simon effect indicates that choice reactions can be performed more quickly if the response corresponds spatially to the stimulus - even when stimulus location is irrelevant to the task. Two experiments tested an intentional approach to the Simon effect that assigns a critical role to the cognitively represented action goal (i. e., the intended action effect). It was assumed that the direction of the Simon effect depends on stimulus-goal correspondence, that is, that responses are faster with spatial correspondence of stimulus and intended action effect. Experiment 1 confirmed that the direction of the Simon effect was determined by spatial correspondence of stimulus and intended action effect, the latter having been manipulated by different instructions. Experiment 2 indicated that effects of correspondences unrelated to the action goal (i. e., stimulus to hand location or to anatomical mapping of the hand), contributed additively to the resulting Simon effect. It is discussed how current approaches to the Simon effect can be elaborated to account for these results.

Keywords

Critical Role Action Effect Current Approach Simon Effect Stimulus Location 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anzola, G. P., Bertolini, G., Buchtel, H. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1977). Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction times. Neuropsychologia, 15, 295–302.Google Scholar
  2. Bradshaw, J. L., Bradshaw, J. A., Pierson-Savage, J. M., & Nettleton, N. C. (1988). Overt and covert attention and vibrotactile reaction times: Gaze direction, spatial compatibility and hemispatial asymmetry. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 44–56.Google Scholar
  3. Brebner, J. (1973). S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice. Acta Psychologica, 37, 93–106.Google Scholar
  4. Brebner, J., Shepard, M., & Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S-R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 36, 1–15.Google Scholar
  5. Callan, J., Klisz, D., & Parsons, O. A. (1974). Strength of auditory stimulus-response compatibility as a function of task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 1039–1045.Google Scholar
  6. Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 331–342.Google Scholar
  7. Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 246–266.Google Scholar
  8. Hays, W. L. (1988). Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427–439.Google Scholar
  10. Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–221.Google Scholar
  11. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility — A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.Google Scholar
  12. Merz, F., Kalveram, K. T., & Huber, K. (1981). Der Einfluss kognitiver Faktoren auf Steuerleistu:ngen. In L. Tent (Ed.), Erkennen, Wollen, Handeln (pp. 327–335). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  13. Michaels, C. F. (1988). S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231–240.Google Scholar
  14. Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., & Umilta, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 664–673.Google Scholar
  15. Nicoletti, R., & Umilta, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.Google Scholar
  16. Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception andaction: Current approaches (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L., & Umilta, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62, 89–100.Google Scholar
  18. Schroeder-Heister, P., Heister, G., & Ehrenstein, W. H. (1988). Spatial S-R compatibility under head tilt. Acta Psychologica, 69, 35–44.Google Scholar
  19. Simon, J. R. (1967). Choice reaction time as a function of auditory S-R correspondence, age and sex. Ergonomics, 10, 659–664.Google Scholar
  20. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.Google Scholar
  21. Simon, J. R., & Acosta Jr., E. (1982). Effect of irrelevant information on the processing of relevant information: Facilitation and/or interference? The influence of experimental design. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 383–388.Google Scholar
  22. Simon, J. R., Hinrichs, J. V., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Auditory S-R compatibility: Reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 97–102.Google Scholar
  23. Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435.Google Scholar
  24. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.Google Scholar
  25. Stoffels, E.-J., Van der Molen, M. W., & Keuss, P. J. G. (1989). An additive factors analysis of the effect(s) of location cues associated with auditory stimulation on stages of information processing. Acta Psychologica, 70, 161–197.Google Scholar
  26. Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135.Google Scholar
  27. Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1985). Attention and coding effects in S-R compatibility due to irrelevant spatial cues. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 457–471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1990). Attentional processes in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 261–275). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  29. Wallace. R. A. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360.Google Scholar
  30. Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 163–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Hommel
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institut für Psychologische ForschungMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations