Psychological Research

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 240–248 | Cite as

Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the Social Simon paradigm

  • Roman Liepelt
  • Dorit Wenke
  • Rico Fischer
Original Article


In previous research, hands-crossed versions of a social variant of the Simon task were used to distinguish between effector-based coding of the Social Simon effect (SSE, analogously to the standard Simon effect) or body-based coding, in which the coding of stimulus location and seating position of the participants functions as a spatial reference frame. In the present study, the analysis of the SSE with respect to previous task requirements (i.e., Simon compatibility in N−1) in a hands-crossed variant of the Social Simon task shows that neither type of coding provides a sole explanation of the pattern of a SSE. Instead, the data pattern seems to be explained more parsimoniously by the assumption of a strengthening of low level feature integration mechanisms in a social setting, taking repetitions and alternations of both agents’ stimulus and response features into account.


Simon Effect Sequential Modulation Simon Task Incompatible Trial Compatible Trial 
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.



The present research was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation awarded to R.L. (DFG LI 2115/1-1). The authors wish to thank Julia Haupt for help with data acquisition, Marco Steinhauser and Timothy N. Welsh for their helpful comments on a previous version of this article.


  1. Adamson, L., Bakeman, R., & Dekner, D. (2004). The development of symbol infused joint engagement. Child Development, 75, 1171–1187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T., Barch, D. M., Carter, C., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539–564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botvinick, M. M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44, 124–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charman, T., Swettenham, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Baird, G., Cox, A., & Drew, A. (2001). Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 15, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731–750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How social is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, R., Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2008). Context-sensitive adjustments of cognitive control: Conflict-adaptation effects are modulated by processing demands of the ongoing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 712–718.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer, R., Plessow, F., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2010). Trial-to-trial modulations of the Simon effect in conditions of attentional limitations: Evidence from dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1576–1594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher, H. L., Happé, F., Brunswick, N., Fletcher, P. C., Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Reading the mind in cartoons and stories: An fMRI study of ‘theory of mind’ in verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 11–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations. Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liepelt, R., & Brass, M. (2010a). Top-down modulation of motor priming by belief about animacy. Experimental Psychology, 57, 221–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liepelt, R., & Brass, M. (2010b). Automatic imitation of physically impossible movements. Social Cognition, 28, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Brass, M. (2010). When do we simulate non-human agents? Dissociating communicative and non-communicative actions. Cognition, 115, 426–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liepelt, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Brass, M. (2008a). What is matched in direct matching? Intention attribution modulates motor priming effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 578–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liepelt, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Brass, M. (2008b). How do we infer others’ goals from nonstereotypic actions? The outcome of context-sensitive inferential processing in right inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortex. NeuroImage, 43, 784–792.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research, 75, 366–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schilbach, L., Wohlschlaeger, A. M., Newen, A., Krämer, N. C., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R., et al. (2006). Being with virtual others: Neural correlates of social interaction. Neuropsychologia, 44, 718–730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint actions: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: corepresenting stimulus–response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor, T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: an integrated perspective. Advances in Psychology (Vol. 65, pp. 31–86) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  31. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Springer, A., Brandstädter, S., Liepelt, R., Birngruber, T., Giese, M., Mechsner, F., et al. (2011). Motor execution affects action prediction. Brain and Cognition, 76, 26–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon Task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsai, C. C., & Brass, M. (2007). Does the human motor system simulate Pinocchio’s actions? Co-acting with a human hand versus a wooden hand in a dyadic interaction. Psychological Science, 18, 1058–1062.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Jing, J. T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2006). The common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vlainic, E., Liepelt, R., Colzato, L. S., Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (2010). The virtual co-actor: the Social Simon effect does not rely on online feedback from the other. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Welsh, T. N. (2009). When 1 + 1 = 1: the unification of independent actors revealed through joint Simon effects persist in crossed and uncrossed effector conditions. Human Movement Science, 28, 726–737.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wenke, D., Holländer, A., Atmaca, S., Liepelt, R., Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2011). What is shared in joint action? The contents of co-representation. The Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2007). Response coding in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 71, 401–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winkel, J., Wijnen, J. G., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Groen, I., Derrfuss, J., Danielmeier, C., et al. (2009). Your conflict matters to me! Behavioral and neural manifestations of control adjustments after self-experienced and observed decision-conflict. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Junior Group “Neurocognition of Joint Action”Westfälische Wilhelms-University MuensterMuensterGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyMax Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyHumboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyTechnische Universitaet DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations