Reaching trajectories unravel modality-dependent temporal dynamics of the automatic process in the Simon task: a model-based approach
The Simon effect represents a phenomenon in which the location of the stimuli affects the speed and accuracy of the response, despite being irrelevant for the task demands. This is believed to be due to an automatic activation of a response corresponding to the location of the stimuli, which conflicts with the controlled decision process based on relevant stimuli features. Previously, differences in the nature of the Simon effect (i.e., the pattern of change of the effect across the distribution of response times) between visual and somatosensory stimuli were reported. We hypothesize that the temporal dynamics of visual and somatosensory automatic and controlled processes vary, thus driving the reported behavioral differences. While most studies have used response times to study the underlying mechanisms involved, in this study we had participants reach out to touch the targets and recorded their arm movements using a motion capture system. Importantly, the participants started their movements before a final decision was made. In this way, we could analyze the movements to gain insights into the competition between the automatic and controlled processes. We used this technique to describe the results in terms of a model assuming automatic activation due to location-based evidence, followed by inhibition. We found that for the somatosensory Simon effect, the decay of the automatic process is significantly slower than for the visual Simon effect, suggesting quantitative differences in this automatic process between the visual and somatosensory modalities.
We thank Maayan Ben Nun for performing the data collection.
The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Blair, R. C., & Karniski, W. (1993). An alternative method for significance testing of waveform difference potentials. Psychophysiology, 30(5), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb02075.x.Google Scholar
- 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(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15126.96.36.1991.Google Scholar
- Flash, T., & Hogan, N. (1985). The coordination of arm movements: An experimentally confirmed mathematical model. Journal of Neuroscience, 5(7), 1688–1703.Google Scholar
- Friedman, J. (2014). Repeated measures (computer software). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10438.
- Friedman, J., & Finkbeiner, M. (2010). Temporal dynamics of masked congruence priming: Evidence from reaching trajectories. In W. Christensen, E. Schier, & J. Sutton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th conference of the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science (pp. 98–105). Sydney: Macquarie University. https://doi.org/10.5096/ascs200916.Google Scholar
- Horowitz, J., Majeed, Y. A., & Patton, J. (2016). A fresh perspective on dissecting action into discrete submotions. In 2016 38th annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (pp. 5684–5688). Presented at the 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). https://doi.org/10.1109/embc.2016.7592017.
- Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 446–461.Google Scholar
- Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 494–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Salzer, Y. (2013). Cognitive control in the tactile Simon task: The unique role of tactile spatial information (PhD). Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.Google Scholar
- Servant, M., White, C., Montagnini, A., & Burle, B. (2016). Linking theoretical decision-making mechanisms in the simon task with electrophysiological data: A model-based neuroscience study in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(10), 1501–1521. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00989.Google Scholar
- Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 65, pp. 31–86). North-Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61218-2.
- Woestenburg, J. C., Verbaten, M. N., van Hees, H. H., & Slangen, J. L. (1983). Single trial ERP estimation in the frequency domain using orthogonal polynomial trend analysis (OPTA): Estimation of individual habituation. Biological Psychology, 17(2–3), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(83)90018-2.Google Scholar