Cognitive Processing

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 299–307 | Cite as

The social Simon effect in the tactile sensory modality: a negative finding

  • Alix Pérusseau-Lambert
  • Margarita Anastassova
  • Mehdi Boukallel
  • Mohamed Chetouani
  • Ouriel GrynszpanEmail author
Research Article


This study seeks to investigate whether users activate cognitive representations of their partner’s action when they are involved in tactile collaborative tasks. The social Simon effect is a spatial stimulus–response interference induced by the mere presence of a partner in a go/nogo task. It has been extensively studied in the visual and auditory sensory modalities, but never before in the tactile modality. We compared the performances of 28 participants in three tasks: (1) a standard Simon task where participants responded to two different tactile stimuli applied to their fingertips with either their left or right foot, (2) an individual go/nogo task where participants responded to only one stimulus and (3) a social go/nogo task where they again responded to only one stimulus, but were partnered with another person who responded to the complementary stimulus. The interference effect due to spatial incongruence between the side where participants received the stimulus and the foot used to answer increased significantly in the standard Simon task compared to the social go/nogo task. Such a difference was not observed between the social and individual go/nogo tasks. Performances were nevertheless enhanced in the social go/nogo task, but irrespectively of the stimulus–response congruency. This study is the first to report a negative result for the social Simon effect in the tactile modality. Results suggest that cognitive representation of the co-actor is weaker in this modality.


Tactile Joint action Interpersonal coordination Stimulus–response compatibility 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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.

Informed consent

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


  1. Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Skinner R, Martin J, Clubley E (2001) The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, malesand females, scientists and mathematicians. J Autism Dev Disord 31(1):5–17. Google Scholar
  2. Colzato LS, de Bruijn ERA, Hommel B (2012) Up to “Me” or up to “Us”? The impact of self-construal priming on cognitive self-other integration. Front Psychol 3:341. Google Scholar
  3. Costantini M, Vacri AD, Chiarelli AM, Ferri F, Romani GL, Merla A (2013) Studying social cognition using near-infrared spectroscopy: the case of social Simon effect. J Biomed Op 18(2):025005. Google Scholar
  4. de la Asuncion J, Docx L, Morrens M, Sabbe B, de Bruijn ERA (2015) Neurophysiological evidence for diminished monitoring of own, but intact monitoring of other’s errors in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 230(2):220–226. Google Scholar
  5. Dittrich K, Rothe A, Klauer KC (2012) Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Atten Percept Psychophys 74(5):911–929. Google Scholar
  6. Dittrich K, Dolk T, Rothe-Wulf A, Klauer KC, Prinz W (2013) Keys and seats: spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Atten Percept Psychophys 75(8):1725–1736. Google Scholar
  7. Dittrich K, Bossert M-L, Rothe-Wulf A, Klauer KC (2017) The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: on the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. Q J Exp Psychol 70(9):1808–1823. Google Scholar
  8. Dolk T, Liepelt R, Villringer A, Prinz W, Ragert P (2012) Morphometric gray matter differences of the medial frontal cortex influence the social Simon effect. NeuroImage 61(4):1249–1254. Google Scholar
  9. Dolk T, Hommel B, Prinz W, Liepelt R (2013) The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 39(5):1248Google Scholar
  10. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2):175–191. Google Scholar
  11. Gallotti M, Frith CD (2013) Social cognition in the we-mode. Trends Cognitive Sci 17(4):160–165. Google Scholar
  12. Guagnano D, Rusconi E, Umiltà CA (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. Google Scholar
  13. Hasbroucq T, Guiard Y (1992) The effects of intensity and irrelevant location of a tactile stimulation in a choice reaction time task. Neuropsychologia 30(1):91–94. Google Scholar
  14. Hommel B, Colzato LS, van den Wildenberg WPM (2009) How social are task representations? Psychol Sci 20(7):794–798. Google Scholar
  15. Iani C, Anelli F, Nicoletti R, Arcuri L, Rubichi S (2011) The role of group membership on the modulation of joint action. Exp Brain Res 211(3–4):439. Google Scholar
  16. Klempova B, Liepelt R (2016) Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect. Psychol Res 80(4):449–463. Google Scholar
  17. Kuhbandner C, Pekrun R, Maier MA (2010) The role of positive and negative affect in the “mirroring” of other persons’ actions. Cogn Emot 24(7):1182–1190. Google Scholar
  18. Liepelt R, Wenke D, Fischer R, Prinz W (2011) Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychol Res 75(5):366–375. Google Scholar
  19. Liepelt R, Wenke D, Fischer R (2013) Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the social Simon paradigm. Psychol Res 77(2):240–248. Google Scholar
  20. Medina J, McCloskey M, Branch H, Rapp B (2014) Somatotopic representation of location: evidence from the Simon effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 40(6):2131–2142. Google Scholar
  21. Ruys KI, Aarts H (2010) When competition merges people’s behavior: interdependency activates shared action representations. J Exp Soc Psychol 46(6):1130–1133. Google Scholar
  22. Salzer Y, Aisenberg D, Oron-Gilad T, Henik A (2014) In touch with the Simon effect *the FIRST two authors contributed equally. Exp Psychol 61(3):165–179. Google Scholar
  23. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2003) Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition 88(3):B11–B21. Google Scholar
  24. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Stumpf L, Prinz W (2005) Far from action-blind: representation of others’ actions in individuals with Autism. Cognitive Neuropsychol 22(3–4):433–454. Google Scholar
  25. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W, Wascher E (2006) Twin peaks: an ERP study of action planning and control in coacting individuals. J Cogn Neurosci 18(5):859–870. Google Scholar
  26. Sebanz N, Rebbechi D, Knoblich G, Prinz W, Frith CD (2007) Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing. Soc Neurosci 2(2):81–95. Google Scholar
  27. Senju A, Southgate V, White S, Frith U (2009) Mindblind eyes: an absence of spontaneous theory of mind in Asperger syndrome. Science 325(5942):883–885. Google Scholar
  28. Simon JR (1969) Reactions toward the source of stimulation. J Exp Psychol 81(1):174Google Scholar
  29. Stenzel A, Chinellato E, Tirado A, del Pobil ÁP, Lappe M, Liepelt R (2012) When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: corepresentation of robotic actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 38(5):1073–1077. Google Scholar
  30. Stenzel A, Dolk T, Colzato LS, Sellaro R, Hommel B, Liepelt R (2014) The joint Simon effect depends on perceived agency, but not intentionality, of the alternative action. Front Hum Neurosci 8:595. Google Scholar
  31. Tsai C-C, Brass M (2007) Does the human motor system simulate pinocchio’s actions?: coacting with a human hand versus a wooden hand in a dyadic interaction. Psychol Sci 18(12):1058–1062. Google Scholar
  32. Tsai C-C, Kuo W-J, Hung DL, Tzeng OJL (2008) Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. J Cogn Neurosci 20(11):2015–2024. Google Scholar
  33. Vlainic E, Liepelt R, Colzato LS, Prinz W, Hommel B (2010) The virtual co-actor: the social simon effect does not rely on online feedback from the other. Front Psychol 1:208. Google Scholar
  34. Welsh TN (2009) When 1 + 1=1: the unification of independent actors revealed through joint Simon effects in crossed and uncrossed effector conditions. Hum Mov Sci 28(6):726–737. Google Scholar
  35. Welsh TN, Kiernan D, Neyedli HF, Ray M, Pratt J, Potruff A, Weeks DJ (2013) Joint simon effects in extrapersonal space. J Mot Behav 45(1):1–5. Google Scholar
  36. Zajonc RB (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149(3681):269–274Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique (ISIR)Sorbonne Université, CNRSParis CEDEX 05France
  2. 2.CEA, LIST, Sensorial and Ambient Interfaces LaboratoryGif-Sur-Yvette CEDEXFrance

Personalised recommendations