Abstract
In 2-choice tasks, responses are faster when stimulus location corresponds to response location, even when stimulus location is irrelevant. Dolk et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 39:1248–1260, 2013a) found this stimulus–response correspondence effect with a single response location in a go–nogo task when an irrelevant Japanese waving cat was present. They argued that salient objects trigger spatial coding of the response relative to that object. We examined this claim using both behavioral and lateralized readiness potential (LRP) measures. In Experiment 1 participants determined the pitch of a left- or right-positioned tone, whereas in Experiment 2 they determined the color of a dot within a centrally located hand pointing left, right, or straight ahead. In both experiments, participants performed a go–nogo task with the right-index finger and a 2-choice task with both index fingers, with a left-positioned Japanese waving cat present or absent. For the go–nogo task, the cat induced a correspondence effect on response times (RT) to the tones (Experiment 1) but not the visual stimuli (Experiment 2). For the 2-choice task, a correspondence effect was evident in all conditions in both experiments. Cat’s presence/absence did not significantly modulate the effect for right and left responses, although there was a trend toward increased RT and LRP for right responses in Experiment 1. The results imply that a salient, irrelevant object could provide a reference frame for response coding when attention is available to process it, as is likely in an auditory task (Experiment 1) but not a visual task (Experiment 2).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
One reviewer raised a concern regarding the twice more “response” trials for the 2-choice task than the go–nogo trials in the data analyses. To address this concern, we conducted another analysis on RT for each experiment comparing the first half of the 2-choice task trials to the go–nogo task trials. Results were similar to the main analyses including all of the 2-choice task trials in both Experiments 1 and 2. In both experiments, the critical 3-way interaction between correspondence, task type, and object condition was not significant, Fs < 1.0. Furthermore, the correspondence effect in the 2-choice task remained unaffected by the cat condition, ts(23) ≤ 1.43, ps ≥ 0.17.
LRPs strongly depend on RTs and are determined mainly on the fast response trials (e.g., Meyer, Osman, Irwin, & Yantis, 1988). Because of the variability of RT between the auditory task in Experiment 1 and the visual task in Experiment 2, different time windows could have been used to assess LRPs. Nevertheless, we focused on the time window 100–200 ms in both experiments where the LRPs for corresponding and noncorresponding trials started to diverge. The complete summaries of LRP analyses for the consecutive 100-ms time windows from 0–400 ms after stimulus onset are reported in Appendix 2 (Experiment 1) and Appendix 4 (Experiment 2).
References
Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.
Bokura, H., Yamaguchi, S., & Kobayashi, S. (2001). Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112, 2224–2232.
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.
De Jong, R., Wierda, M., Mulder, G., & Mulder, L. J. M. (1988). The use of partial information in response processing: a psychophysiological investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 682–692.
Dimoska, A., Johnstone, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2006). The auditory-evoked N2 and P3 components in the stop-signal task: indices of inhibition, response-conflict or error-detection? Brain and Cognition, 62, 98–112.
Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K. C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736.
Dittrich, K., Kellen, D., & Stahl, C. (2014). Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: changes and challenges. Psychological Research, 78, 387–399.
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.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontier in Psychology, 2, 84.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration. Frontier in Psychology, 5, 974.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013a). The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260.
Dolk, T., Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Fiehler, K. (2013b). Visual experience determines the use of external reference frames in joint action control. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59008.
Donders, F. C. (1969). On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychologica, 30, 412–431.
Donkers, F. C. L., & Van Boxtel, G. J. M. (2004). The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 56, 165–176.
Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2007). A model of the go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 389–413.
Guagnano, D., Rusconia, E., & Umiltá, 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.
Holländer, A., Jung, C., & Prinz, W. (2011). Covert motor activity on NoGo trials in a task sharing paradigm: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 345–356.
Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279.
Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571.
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 494–500.
Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (Theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512–526.
Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations. Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.
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.
Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 99–104.
Kopp, B., Mattler, U., Goertz, R., & Rist, F. (1996). N2, P3 and the lateralised readiness potential in a nogo task involving selective response priming. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 99, 19–27.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & D’Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus–response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 79, 115–130.
Lien, M.-C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus–response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212–238.
Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Hsieh, S.-L., & Yu, Y.-T. (2007). Parallel central processing between tasks: evidence from lateralized readiness potential. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 133–141.
Liepelt, R. (2014). Interacting hands: the role of attention for the joint Simon effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1462.
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Influence of irrelevant information on human performance: effects of S-R association strength and relative timing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 95–136.
Masaki, H., Wild-Wall, N., Sanglas, J., & Sommer, W. (2004). The functional locus of the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 41, 220–230.
Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.
Meyer, O. W., Osman, A. M., Irwin, O. E., & Yantis, S. (1988). Modern mental chronometry. Biological Psychology, 26, 3–67.
Miller, J., Coles, M. G. H., & Chakraborty, S. (1996). Dissociation between behavioral and psychophysiological measures of response preparation. Acta Psychologica, 94, 189–208.
Miller, J., & Hackley, S. A. (1992). Electrophysiological evidence for temporal overlap among contingent mental processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 195–209.
Neumann, O., van der Heijden, A. H. C., & Allport, D. A. (1986). Visual selective attention: introductory remarks. Psychological Research, 48, 185–188.
Nicoletti, R., & Umiltá, C. (1989a). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.
Nicoletti, R., & Umiltá, C. (1989b). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144–150.
Praamstra, P. (2007). Do’s and don’ts with lateralized event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 497–502.
Proctor, R. W., & Shao, C. (2010). Does the contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence to the auditory Simon effect increase with practice? Experimental Brain Research, 204, 131–137.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1988). Determinants of two-choice reaction-time patterns for same-hand and different-hand finger pairings. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20, 317–340.
Roberts, L. E., Rau, H., Lutzenberger, W., & Birbaumer, N. (1994). Mapping P300 waves onto inhibition: Go/No-Go discrimination. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 92, 44–55.
Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: what, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 353–367.
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How to share a task: co-representing stimulus–response mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: an ERP study of action planning and control in coacting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 859–870.
Shiu, L.-P., & Kornblum, S. (1999). Stimulus–response compatibility effects in go–no-go tasks: a dimensional overlap account. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 1613–1623.
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.
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.
Smith, J. L., Johnstone, S. J., & Barry, R. J. (2007). Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: the N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 343–355.
Smith, J. L., Smith, E. A., Provost, A. L., & Healthcote, A. (2010). Sequence effects support the conflict theory of N2 and P3 in the Go/Nogo task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 75, 217–218.
Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional zooming and spatial S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135.
Tsai, C.-C., Kuo, W.-J., Jing, J.-T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J.-L. (2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353–362.
Ulrich, R., Mattes, S., & Miller, J. O. (1999). Doners’s assumption of pure insertion: an evaluation on the basis of response dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 102, 43–75.
Valle-Inclán, F. (1996). The locus of interference in the Simon effect: an ERP study. Biological Psycholology, 43, 147–162.
Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751.
Xiong, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2015). Referential coding of steering-wheel button presses in a simulated driving cockpit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (in press).
Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). The Simon task with multi-component responses: two loci of response-effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 75, 214–226.
Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119, 272–303.
Acknowledgments
We thank Wilfried Kunde, Eric Ruthruff, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. We also thank Andrew Morgan for technical support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
A summary table for ANOVAs on the mean response time (RT) and proportion of error (PE) as a function of task order (go–nogo task first and 2-choice task second vs. 2-choice task first and go–nogo task second), task type (go–nogo task vs. 2-choice task), object condition (present vs. absent), and correspondence between response location and tone location (corresponding vs. noncorresponding) in Experiment 1
Effect | df | RT | PE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | η 2 p | F | p | η 2 p | ||
Ord | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Task | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 35.41 | <0.0001 | 0.62 |
Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Corr | 1,22 | 45.20 | <0.0001 | 0.67 | 30.12 | <0.0001 | 0.58 |
Ord × Task | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Obj | 1,22 | 4.05 | 0.06 | 0.16 | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Task × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Task × Corr | 1,22 | 48.82 | <0.0001 | 0.69 | 37.22 | <0.0001 | 0.63 |
Obj × Corr | 1,22 | 5.85 | <0.05 | 0.21 | 1.08 | 0.31 | 0.05 |
Ord × Task × Obj | 1,22 | 3.13 | 0.09 | 0.12 | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Task × Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Obj × Corr | 1,22 | 1.0 | 0.33 | 0.04 | 1.03 | 0.32 | 0.04 |
Task × Obj × Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 3.15 | 0.09 | 0.13 |
Ord × Task × Obj × Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Appendix 2
A summary table for ANOVAs on the average LRP as a function of task order (go–nogo task first and 2-choice task second vs. 2-choice task first and go–nogo task second), task type (go–nogo task vs. 2-choice task), object condition (present vs. absent), and correspondence between response location and tone location (corresponding vs. noncorresponding) for the four consecutive 100-ms time windows from 0 to 400 ms after stimulus onset in Experiment 1
Effect | df | 0–100 ms | 100–200 ms | 200–300 ms | 300–400 ms | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | η 2 p | F | p | η 2 p | F | p | η 2 p | F | p | η 2 p | ||
Ord | 1,22 | 1.08 | 0.31 | 0.05 | <1.0 | – | – | 3.40 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 4.25 | 0.05 | 0.16 |
Task | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | 4.81 | <0.05 | 0.18 | <1.0 | – | – |
Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 2.15 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 3.16 | 0.09 | 0.50 | 3.55 | 0.07 | 0.14 |
Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 7.74 | <0.05 | 0.26 | 16.05 | <0.001 | 0.42 | 46.77 | <0.0001 | 0.68 |
Ord × Task | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | 1.18 | 0.29 | 0.05 |
Ord × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Corr | 1,22 | 2.44 | 0.13 | 0.10 | <1.0 | – | – | 2.16 | 0.16 | 0.09 | <1.0 | – | – |
Task × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Task × Corr | 1,22 | 3.46 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 1.37 | 0.25 | 0.06 | 2.01 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 2.33 | 0.14 | 0.10 |
Obj × Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Task × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Task × Corr | 1,22 | 1.10 | 0.31 | 0.05 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Obj × Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 1.30 | 0.27 | 0.06 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Task × Obj × Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | 2.41 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 1.53 | 0.23 | 0.07 |
Ord × Task × Obj × Corr | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 4.17 | 0.05 | 0.16 | 2.56 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 2.35 | 0.14 | 0.10 |
Appendix 3
A summary table for ANOVAs on the mean response time (RT) and proportion of error (PE) as a function of task order (go–nogo task first and 2-choice task second vs. 2-choice task first and go–nogo task second), task type (go–nogo task vs. 2-choice task), object condition (present vs. absent), and correspondence between response location and hand-pointing direction (neutral, corresponding, vs. noncorresponding) in Experiment 2
Effect | df | RT | PE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | η 2 p | F | p | η 2 p | ||
Ord | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Task | 1,22 | 8.98 | <0.01 | 0.29 | 35.19 | <0.0001 | 0.62 |
Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Corr | 2,44 | 4.38 | <0.05 | 0.17 | 3.72 | <0.05 | 0.14 |
Ord × Task | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 2.80 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
Ord × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | 1.75 | 0.19 | 0.07 |
Task × Obj | 1,22 | 1.34 | 0.26 | 0.06 | <1.0 | – | – |
Task × Corr | 2,44 | 1.90 | <0.05 | 0.18 | 2.02 | 0.15 | 0.08 |
Obj × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | 1.32 | 0.27 | 0.06 |
Ord × Task × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 1.83 | 0.19 | 0.08 |
Ord × Task × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Obj × Corr | 2,44 | 1.19 | 0.31 | 0.05 | <1.0 | – | – |
Task × Obj × Corr | 2,44 | 1.49 | 0.24 | 0.06 | 1.54 | 0.23 | 0.07 |
Ord × Task × Obj × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Appendix 4
A summary table for ANOVAs on the average LRP as a function of task order (go–nogo task first and 2-choice task second vs. 2-choice task first and go–nogo task second), task type (go–nogo task vs. 2-choice task), object condition (present vs. absent), and correspondence between response location and hand-pointing direction (neutral, corresponding, vs. noncorresponding) for the four consecutive 100-ms time windows from 0 to 400 ms after stimulus onset in Experiment 2
Effect | df | 0–100 ms | 100–200 ms | 200–300 ms | 300–400 ms | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | p | η 2 p | F | p | η 2 p | F | p | η 2 p | F | p | η 2 p | ||
Ord | 1,22 | 1.70 | 0.21 | 0.07 | 4.45 | <0.05 | 0.17 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Task | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | 4.69 | <0.05 | 0.18 | <1.0 | – | – |
Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | 1.35 | 0.26 | 0.06 | <1.0 | – | – |
Corr | 2,44 | 2.02 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 20.14 | <0.0001 | 0.48 | 1.40 | 0.26 | 0.06 | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Task | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 2.77 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 4.37 | <0.05 | 0.17 | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Corr | 2,44 | 2.03 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 8.06 | <0.001 | 0.27 | <1.0 | – | – | 1.01 | 0.37 | 0.04 |
Task × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | 3.05 | 0.09 | 0.12 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Task × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | 1.64 | 0.21 | 0.07 | 7.58 | <0.01 | 0.26 | <1.0 | – | – |
Obj × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | 1.64 | 0.21 | 0.07 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Task × Obj | 1,22 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | 2.21 | 0.15 | 0.09 |
Ord × Task × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | 1.28 | 0.29 | 0.06 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – |
Ord × Obj × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | 2.67 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 3.10 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 1.41 | 0.25 | 0.06 |
Task × Obj × Corr | 2,44 | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | <1.0 | – | – | 4.20 | <0.05 | 0.16 |
Ord × Task × Obj × Corr | 2,44 | 3.47 | <0.05 | 0.14 | 4.15 | <0.05 | 0.16 | 1.0 | 0.38 | 0.04 | 1.38 | 0.26 | 0.06 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lien, MC., Pedersen, L. & Proctor, R.W. Stimulus–response correspondence in go–nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?. Psychological Research 80, 912–934 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0699-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0699-0