Advertisement

The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon effect: remapping of working space by tool use

  • Cristina IaniEmail author
  • Francesca Ciardo
  • Simone Panajoli
  • Luisa Lugli
  • Sandro Rubichi
Original Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

The Simon effect, that is the advantage of the spatial correspondence between stimulus and response locations when stimulus location is task irrelevant, occurs even when the task is performed by two participants, each performing a go/no-go task. This effect, known as the joint Simon effect, does not emerge when participants sit outside each other’s peripersonal space, thus suggesting that the presence of an active confederate in peripersonal space might provide a reference for response coding. The present study investigated whether this finding is due to the distance separating the participants and/or to the distance separating each participant and the other agent’s response. In two experiments, pairs of participants performed a social detection task sitting outside each other’s arm reach, with response keys located close to the participants or outside arm reach. When the response key was located outside the participant’s arm reach, he/she could reach it by means of a tool. In Experiment 1, by means of a tool, participants could reach their response key only, while in Experiment 2, they could reach also their co-agent’s response key. The joint Simon effect did not emerge when participants could not reach the co-actor’s response, while it emerged when they could potentially reach the other participant’s response using the tool, but only when turn taking was required. These results may be taken as evidence that the possibility to reach and act upon the co-actor’s response key may be at the bases of compatibility effects observed in joint action contexts requiring complementary responses.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Ethical approval

The manuscript does not report clinical studies or patient data. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study fulfilled the ethical standard procedure recommended by the Italian Association of Psychology (AIP). It was approved by the Department of Communication and Economics of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ambrosini, E., Sinigaglia, C., & Costantini, M. (2012). Tie my hands, tie my eyes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,38(2), 263–266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,12(3), 415–420.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourgeois, J., & Coello, Y. (2012). Effect of visuomotor calibration and uncertainty on the perception of peripersonal space. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics,74(6), 1268–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourgeois, J., Farnè, A., & Coello, Y. (2014). Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. Acta Psychologica,148, 91–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brozzoli, C., Gentile, G., Bergouignan, L., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2013). A shared representation of the space near oneself and others in the human premotor cortex. Current Biology,23(18), 1764–1768.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.07.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Canzoneri, E., Ubaldi, S., Rastelli, V., Finisguerra, A., Bassolino, M., & Serino, A. (2013). Tool-use reshapes the boundaries of body and peripersonal space representations. Experimental Brain Research,228(1), 25–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3532-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardinali, L., Jacobs, S., Brozzoli, C., Frassinetti, F., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2012). Grab an object with a tool and change your body: Tool-use-dependent changes of body representation for action. Experimental Brain Research,218, 259–271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3028-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciardo, F., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., Rubichi, S., & Iani, C. (2016). Action-space coding in social contexts. Scientific Reports,6, 22673.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22673.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciardo, F., & Wykowska, A. (2018). Response coordination emerges in cooperative but not competitive joint task. Frontiers in Psychology,9, 1919.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01919.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Sinigaglia, C., & Gallese, V. (2011). Tool-use observation makes far objects ready-to-hand. Neuropsychologia,49(9), 2658–2663.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.05.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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/10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dittrich, K., Bossert, M.-L., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2017a). The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: On the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,70(9), 1808–1823.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1207690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dittrich, K., Puffe, L., & Klauer, K. C. (2017b). You are right! Spatial instructions increase social Simon effects. Experimental Psychology,64(6), 406–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics,74, 911–929.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0304-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, 84.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00084.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Lipelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and a theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology,5, 974.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolk, T., & Prinz, W. (2016). What it takes to share a task: Sharing versus shaping task representations. In S. S. Obhi & E. S. Cross (Eds.), Cambridge social neuroscience. Shared representations: Sensorimotor foundations of social life (pp. 3–21). New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107279353.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,39(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferraro, L., Iani, C., Mariani, M., Milanese, N., & Rubichi, S. (2011). Facilitation and interference components in the joint Simon task. Experimental Brain Research,211(3–4), 337–343.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2711-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferraro, L., Iani, C., Mariani, M., Nicoletti, R., Gallese, V., & Rubichi, S. (2012). Look what I am doing: Does observational learning take place in evocative task-sharing situations? PLoS One,7(8), e43311.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043311.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). How the body in action shapes the self. Journal of Consciousness Studies,18, 117–143.Google Scholar
  22. Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition,114(3), 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2013). Joint (mis-)representations: A reply to Welsh et al. (2013). Journal of Motor Behavior,45(1), 9–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2012.752688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research,55, 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica,136(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science,20, 794–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology,3, 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iani, C., Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., Arcuri, L., & Rubichi, S. (2011). The role of group membership on the modulation of joint action. Experimental Brain Research,211, 439–445.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2651-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Iani, C., Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., & Rubichi, S. (2014). The carry-over effect of competition in task-sharing: Evidence from the joint Simon task. PLoS ONE,9(6), e97991.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097991.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Iani, C., Rubichi, S., Ferraro, L., Nicoletti, R., & Gallese, V. (2013). Observational learning without a model is influenced by the observer’s possibility to act: Evidence from the Simon task. Cognition,128(1), 26–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Iani, C., Rubichi, R., Gherri, E., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). Co-occurrence of sequential and practice effects in the Simon task: Evidence for two independent mechanisms affecting response selection. Memory & Cognition,37, 358–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karlinsky, A., Lam, M. Y., Chua, R., & Hodges, N. J. (2017). Whose turn is it anyway? The moderating role of response-execution certainty on the joint Simon effect. Psychological Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0901-7. (E-pub head of print).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review,97, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lam, M. Y., & Chua, R. (2010). Influence of stimulus–response assignment on the joint-action correspondence effect. Psychological Research,74(5), 476–480.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0269-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lugli, L., Iani, C., Milanese, N., Sebanz, N., & Rubichi, S. (2015). Spatial parameters at the basis of social transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,41(3), 840–849.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lugli, L., Iani, C., Nicoletti, R., & Rubichi, S. (2013). Emergence of the go/no-go Simon effect by means of practice and mixing paradigms. Acta Psychologica,144(1), 19–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.04.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Martel, M., Cardinali, L., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2016). Tool-use: An open window into body representation and its plasticity. Cognitive Neuropsychology,33(1–2), 82–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Michel, R., Bölte, J., & Liepelt, R. (2018). When a Social Experimenter Overwrites Effects of Salient Objects in an Individual Go/No-Go Simon Task: An ERP Study. Frontiers in Psychology,9, 674.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00674.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research,56, 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patanè, I., Farnè, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2017). Cooperative tool-use reveals peripersonal and interpersonal spaces are dissociable. Cognition,166, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pezzulo, G., Iodice, P., Ferraina, S., & Kessler, K. (2013). Shared action spaces: A basis function framework for social re-calibration of sensorimotor representations supporting joint action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,7, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prinz, W. (2015). Task representation in individual and joint settings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,9, 268.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00286.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rossetti, A., Romano, D., Bolognini, N., & Maravita, A. (2015). Dynamic expansion of alert responses to incoming painful stimuli following tool use. Neuropsychologia,70, 486–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruissen, M. I., & de Bruijn, E. (2016). Competitive game play attenuates self-other integration during joint task performance. Frontiers in Psychology,7, 341.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition,88(3), B11–B21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00043-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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(6), 1234–1246.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: An ERP study of action planning and control in co-acting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,18, 859–870.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.859.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sellaro, R., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Liepelt, R., & Hommel, B. (2015). Referential coding does not rely on location features: Evidence for a nonspatial joint Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,41(1), 186–195.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sellaro, R., Treccani, B., Rubichi, S., & Cubelli, R. (2013). When co-action eliminates the Simon effect: Disentangling the impact of co-actor’s presence and task sharing on joint-task performance. Frontiers in Psychology,4, 844.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory SR compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology,51(3), 300–304.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,20, 2015–2024.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20144.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Welsh, T. N., Higgings, L., Ray, M., & Weeks, D. J. (2007). Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? Human Movement Science,26, 853–866.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.06.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Welsh, T. N., Kiernan, D., Neyedli, H. F., Ray, M., Pratt, J., Potruff, A., & Weeks, D. J. (2013). Joint Simon effects in extra-personal space. Journal of Motor Behavior,45(1), 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2012.746635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and EconomicsUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  2. 2.Center for Neuroscience and NeurotechnologyUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly
  3. 3.Social Cognition in Human-Robot Interaction UnitIstituto Italiano di TecnologiaGenoaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Philosophy and CommunicationUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  5. 5.Department of Education and Human SciencesUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly

Personalised recommendations