Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 72, Issue 7, pp 1965–1974 | Cite as

Visual and auditory accessory stimulus offset and the Simon effect

  • Akio Nishimura
  • Kazuhiko YokosawaEmail author
Research Articles


We investigated the effect on the right and left responses of the disappearance of a task-irrelevant stimulus located on the right or left side. Participants pressed a right or left response key on the basis of the color of a centrally located visual target. Visual (Experiment 1) or auditory (Experiment 2) task-irrelevant accessory stimuli appeared or disappeared at locations to the right or left of the central target. In Experiment 1, responses were faster when onset or offset of the visual accessory stimulus was spatially congruent with the response. In Experiment 2, responses were again faster when onset of the auditory accessory stimulus and the response were on the same side. However, responses were slightly slower when offset of the auditory accessory stimulus and the response were on the same side than when they were on opposite sides. These findings indicate that transient change information is crucial for a visual Simon effect, whereas sustained stimulation from an ongoing stimulus also contributes to an auditory Simon effect.


Simon Effect Accessory Stimulus Referential Code Account Compat Ibility Auditory Accessory Stimulus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ansorge, U. (2003). Spatial Simon effects and compatibility effects induced by observed gaze direction. Visual Cognition, 10, 363–383. doi:10.1080/13506280244000122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldo, J. V., Shimamura, A. P., & Prinzmetal, W. (1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-like tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 427–437.Google Scholar
  3. Chastain, G., & Cheal, M. (2001). Attentional capture with various distractor and target types. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 979–990.Google Scholar
  4. de Gelder, B., & Bertelson, P. (2003). Multisensory integration, perception and ecological validity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 460–467. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222. oi:10.1146/ Scholar
  7. Deubel, H., Schneider, W. X., & Paprotta, I. (1998). Selective dorsal and ventral processing: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Visual Cognition, 5, 81–107. doi:10.1080/713756776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6, 509–540. doi:10.1080/135062899394920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan, J., Martens, S., & Ward, R. (1997). Restricted attentional capacity within but not between sensory modalities. Nature, 387, 808–810. doi:10.1038/42947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Eimer, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 837–854. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eimer, M. (1997). Uninformative symbolic cues may bias visual-spatial attention: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 46, 67–71. doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(97)05254-XCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 555–556. doi:10.1038/nn1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 490–495.Google Scholar
  14. Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222. doi:10.1007/BF00419608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hommel, B. (2002). Responding to object files: Automatic integration of spatial information revealed by stimulus-response compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 567–580. doi:10.1080/02724980143000361Google Scholar
  16. Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention. Psychological Science, 12, 360–365. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lidji, P., Kolinsky, R., Lochy, A., & Morais, J. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: A piano in the head? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 1189–1207. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lleras, A., Moore, C. M., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2004). Looking for the source of the Simon effect: Evidence for multiple codes. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 531–542. doi:10.2307/4148990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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. doi:10.1080/02724980042000048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Masaki, H., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology, 37, 464–472. doi:10.1017/S0048577200981976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore, C. M., Lleras, A., Grosjean, M., & Marrara, M. T. (2004). Using inattentional blindness as an operational definition of unattended: The case of a response-end effect. Visual Cognition, 11, 705–719. doi:10.1080/13506280344000482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 164–169. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.15.1.164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2009). Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: The Simon effect and the SMARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 666–670. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.4.666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Notebaert, W., Soetens, E., & Melis, A. (2001). Sequential analysis of a Simon task: Evidence for an attention-shift account. Psychological Research, 65, 170–184. doi:10.1007/s004260000054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Phillips, D. P., Hall, S. E., & Boehnke, S. E. (2002). Central auditory onset responses, and temporal asymmetries in auditory perception. Hearing Research, 167, 192–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25. doi:10.1080/00335558008248231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C.-H. (1994). Referential coding and attention-shifting accounts of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 56, 185–195. doi:10.1007/BF00419706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Proctor, R. W., Pick, D. F., Vu, K.-P. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2005). The enhanced Simon effect for older adults is reduced when the irrelevant location information is conveyed by an accessory stimulus. Acta Psychologica, 119, 21–40. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ricciardelli, P., Bonfiglioli, C., Iani, C., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2007). Spatial coding and central patterns: Is there something special about the eyes? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 79–90. doi:10.1037/cep2007_2_79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Roswarski, T. E., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). The role of instructions, practice, and stimulus-hand correspondence on the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 67, 43–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Iani, C., & Umiltà, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1353–1364. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.5.1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schankin, A., Valle-Inclán, F., & Hackley, S. A. (2010). Compatibility between stimulated eye, target location and response location. Psychological Research, 74, 291–301. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0247-xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schröter, H., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2007). Effects of redundant auditory stimuli on reaction time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 39–44.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Simon, J. R., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Effects of an irrelevant auditory stimulus on visual choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 272–274. doi:10.1037/h0029961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Simon, J. R., Craft, J. L., & Small, A. M., Jr. (1970). Manipulating the strength of a stereotype: Interference effects in an auditory information-processing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 63–68. doi:10.1037/h0029944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simon, J. R., Craft, J. L., & Webster, J. B. (1971). Reaction time to onset and offset of lights and tones: Reactions toward the changed element in a two-element display. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 197–202. doi:10.1037/h0031167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Simon, J. R., & Pouraghabagher, R. (1978). The effect of aging on the stages of processing in a choice reaction time task. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 553–561.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435. doi:10.1037/h0028034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoffer, T. H. (1991). Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53, 127–135. doi:10.1007/BF01371820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 83–90.Google Scholar
  46. Treccani, B., Umiltà, C., & Tagliabue, M. (2006). Simon effect with and without awareness of the accessory stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 268–286. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Valle-Inclán, F., Hackley, S. A., & de Labra, C. (2003). Stimulus-response compatibility between stimulated eye and response location: Implications for attentional accounts of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 67, 240–243. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0131-zCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 & Performance, 27, 731–751. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wühr, P., & Kunde, W. (2006). Spatial correspondence between onsets and offsets of stimuli and responses. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 359–377. doi:10.1080/09541440500334417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang, J. X., & Johnson, M. K. (2004). A memory-based, Simon-like, spatial congruence effect: Evidence for persisting spatial codes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 419–436. doi:10.1080/02724980343000404Google Scholar
  52. Zorzi, M., Mapelli, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Automatic spatial coding of perceived gaze direction is revealed by the Simon effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 423–429.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Humanities and SociologyUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations