Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attention precuing and Simon effects: A test of the attention-coding account of the Simon effect

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Simon effects refer to the finding that choice-response latencies to a nonspatial aspect of a stimulus vary depending on the spatial correspondence between the stimulus position and the position of the correct response alternative. Recently, researchers have proposed an attention-coding account of Simon effects whereby the (irrelevant) stimulus spatial code involved in the generation of the effect is formed in the process of attentional orienting to the stimulus. This account predicts that if attentional orienting is unnecessary at stimulus onset, as when the stimulus appears at an attended location, Simon effects will not be observed. This prediction was tested by measurement of Simon effects in an attention-precuing task in which the stimulus was presented at attended and unattended locations. Significant Simon effects were observed independently of the focus of attention. This result was obtained over a large range of precue-target SOAs, and did not depend on whether central or peripheral precues were used to direct attention or on whether the relevant target dimension was color or form. Significant Simon effects were not observed when the precue-target SOA was 50 ms, irrespective of the other precue and task conditions. The data do not support the prediction of the attention-coding account and thus question the generality of the account in its current form. It is suggested that spatial and temporal uncertainties are important factors that influence the pattern of results, and that these factors must be incorporated into attention-coding models of the Simon effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acosta, E., Jr., & Simon, J. R. (1976). The effect of irrelevant information on the stages of processing.Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 181–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, A. (1989). Visual attention. In M. I. Posner (Ed.),Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 631–682). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlucchi, G., Aglioti, S., Biscaldi, M., Chelazzi, L., Corbetta, M., & Tassinari, G. (1989). Spatial constraints on the distribution of selective attention in the visual field. In C. von Euler, I. Lundberg, & G. Lennerstrand (Eds.),Brain and reading: Proceedings of the Seventh International Rodin Remediation Conference (pp. 115–128). New York: Stockton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, J. L., Willmott, C. J., Umiltà, C., Phillips, J. G., Bradshaw, J. A., & Mattingley J. B. (1994). Hand-hemispace spatial compatibility, precueing, and stimulus-onset asynchrony.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 170–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brebner, J., Shephard, M., & Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S R compatibility.Acta Psychologica, 36, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breitmeyer, B. (1984).Visual masking: An integrative approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briand, K. A., & Klein, R. M. (1987). Is Posner's “beam” the same as Treisman's “glue”?: On the relation between visual orienting and feature integration theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 228–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chastain, G. (1992). Is rapid performance improvement across short precue-target delays due to masking from peripheral precues?Acta Psychologica, 79, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. (1989). Attention effects on form discrimination at different eccentricities.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 719–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, C. J. (1988). Expectancy and visual-spatial attention: Effects on perceptual quality.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 188–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, M. E., & Segraves, M. A. (1987). Visuospatial and motor attention in the monkey.Neuropsychologia, 25, 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hawkins, H. L., Hillyard, S. A., Luck, S. J., Mouloua, M., Downing, C. J., & Woodward, D. P. (1990). Visual attention modulates signal detectability.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 802–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, H. L., Shafto, M. G., & Richardson, K. (1988). Effects of target luminance and cue validity on the latency of visual detection.Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 484–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedge, A., & Marsh, M. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondence on two-choice response time.Acta Psychologica, 39, 427–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993a). The effects of spatial cues on visual attention, response selection, and spatial compatibility.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(5), 387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993b). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 55, 280–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993c). The role of attention for the Simon effect.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 55, 208–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1994). Effects of irrelevant spatial S-R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity.Psychological Research/ Psychologische Forschung, 56, 179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, H. C. (1984). Effects of flash luminance and positional expectancies on visual response latency.Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 177–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, H. C., & Zimba, L. D. (1985). Spatial maps of directed visual attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 409–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, H. C., & Zimba, L. D. (1987). Natural boundaries for the spatial spread of directed visual attention.Neuropsychologia, 25, 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J. B. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.),Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. M. (1993, May).On the relationships between overt and covert orienting: A view from human performance. Paper presented at the Third West Coast Attention Meeting, Eugene, OR.

  • Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus stimulus compatibility. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.),Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 743–777). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap, a cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Acta Psychologica, 79, 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mewaldt, S. P., Connelly, C. L., & Simon, J. R. (1980). Response selection in choice reaction time: Test of a buffer model.Memory & Cognition, 8, 606–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. J., & Findlay, J. M. (1987). Sensitivity and criterion effects in the spatial cuing of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 383–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. J., & Findlay, J. M. (1988). The effect of visual attention on peripheral discrimination thresholds in single and multiple element displays.Acta Psychologica, 69, 129–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O. (1990). Visual attention and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.),Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 227–267). New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 144–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Leary, M. J., & Barber, P. J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 830–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Ogden, W. C. (1978). Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In H. L. Pick & I. J. Saltzman (Eds.),Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 137–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., Lu, C.-H., & Van Zandt, T. (1992). Enhancement of the Simon effect by response precuing.Acta Psychologica, 81, 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics.Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.

    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.)Stimulus response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Acosta, E., Jr., & Mewaldt, S. P. (1975), Effect of locus of warning tone on auditory choice reaction time.Memory & Cognition, 3, 167–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Acosta, E., Jr., Mewaldt, S. P., & Speidel, C. R. (1976). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on choice reaction time: Duration of the phenomenon and its relation to stages of processing.Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Craft, J. L., & Webster, J. B. (1973). Reactions toward the stimulus source: Analysis of correct responses and errors over a five-day period.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 175–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue.Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass, J. G., Levy-Berger, G., & Hayden, M. (1985). Human experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 53, 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffer, T. H., & Yakin, A. R. (1994). The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P., Brehaut, J. C., & Driver, J. (1990). Selection of moving and static objects for the control of spatially directed action.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 492–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 49, 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.),Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1992). An integrated model of the Simon effect. In J. Alegria, D. Hollender, Junça de Morais, & M. Radeau (Eds.),Analytic approaches to human cognition (pp 331–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Rizzolatti, G. (1991). Differential effects of central and peripheral cues on the reorienting of spatial attention.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3, 247–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1990). Visual information processing and selection. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.),Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 186–226). New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1988a). Attentional factors in the occurrence of stimulus-response compatibility effects.Neuropsychologia, 26, 435–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1988b). Hemispheric asymmetries in mediating intention, but not selective attention.Neuropsychologia, 26, 521–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of the response code.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimba, L. D., & Hughes, H. C. (1987). Distractor-target interactions during directed visual attention.Spatial Vision.2, 117–149.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Speech and Language Neuroscience, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of Iowa, 13 WJSHC, 52242-1407, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Lynn D. Zimba

  2. Department of Psychology, University of iowa, 11 SSH East, 52242-1407, IA, USA

    Caridad F. Brito

Authors
  1. Lynn D. Zimba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caridad F. Brito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynn D. Zimba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zimba, L.D., Brito, C.F. Attention precuing and Simon effects: A test of the attention-coding account of the Simon effect. Psychol. Res 58, 102–118 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571099

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571099

Keywords

Search

Navigation