Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 1008–1019 | Cite as

A Simon-like effect in Go/No-Go tasks performed in isolation

  • Karen DavrancheEmail author
  • Laurence Carbonnell
  • Clément Belletier
  • Franck Vidal
  • Pascal Huguet
  • Thibault Gajdos
  • Thierry Hasbroucq
Brief Report

Abstract

The present study was conducted to decipher whether a spatial correspondence effect can emerge in Go/No-Go tasks (cSE, in reference to Donders’ type c task) performed in isolation (participant alone in the cubicle). To this aim, a single participant was centrally positioned in front of a device and was required to respond by a hand key-press to the color of the stimulus. Half the participants were seated in front of a table equipped with only one response key and the other half in front of a table equipped with two response keys (one active and the other one useless). Using a substantial number of subjects (48) and trials (960), the present study revealed a numerically small but statistically reliable cSE. This result contrasts with referential coding predictions and suggests that the representation of a concurrently active response is not a prerequisite for the cSE to emerge. Moreover, the presence of a second response button in the participant’s peripersonal space exerted no measurable influence on the cSE. The lack of statistical power of numerous previous studies may explain why the cSE has often been considered to be nil.

Keywords

Go/No-Go task Spatial correspondence Referential coding Direct activation 

References

  1. Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2009). Transfer of response codes from choice-response to go/no-go tasks. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), 62(6):1216-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansorge, U. & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(2): 365-377.Google Scholar
  3. Bürkner, P. C. (2016). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1-28.Google Scholar
  4. Callan, J., Klisz, D., & Parsons, O. A. (1974). Strength of auditory stimulus-response compatability as a function of task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102(6), 1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carbonnell, L., Ramdani, C., Meckler, C., Burle, B., Hasbroucq, T., & Vidal, F. (2013). The N-40: an electrophysiological marker of response selection. Biological Psychology, 93(1), 231-236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012) Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Atten Percept Psychophys, 74(5):911-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1248.Google Scholar
  11. Gelman, A. & D. B. Rubin (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences (with discussion). Statistical Science, 7:457-511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 ciences, 24, 849–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55(3), 208-222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hommel, B. (1995). Stimulus- response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 764-775.Google Scholar
  15. Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research PRPF, 73(4), 512-526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta psychologica, 136(2), 189-202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 1-9.Google Scholar
  18. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research 75(5):366-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Porcu, E., Bölling, L., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2016). Pointing out mechanisms underlying joint action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(4), 972-977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Puffe, L., Dittrich, K., & Klauer, K. C. (2017). The influence of the Japanese waving cat on the joint spatial compatibility effect: A replication and extension of Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, and Liepelt (2013). PLOS ONE, 12(9), e0184844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. R core Team (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  23. Reeve, T., & Proctor, R. W. (1988). Determinants of two-choice reaction-time patterns for same-hand and different-hand finger pairings. Journal of Motor Behavior, 20(3), 317-340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saunders, D. R., Melcher, D., & van Zoest, W. (2017). No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task. Psychological Research, 1-11.Google Scholar
  25. Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint actions: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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, 1234–1246.Google Scholar
  28. 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. Front Psychology 4:844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shiu, L. P., & Kornblum, S. (1999). Stimulus-response compatibility effects in go-no-go tasks: A dimensional overlap account. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(8), 1613-1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. Advances in Psychology, 65, 31-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stenzel, A., & Liepelt, R. (2016). Joint Simon effects for non-human co-actors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(1), 143-158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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(2), 353-362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vidal, F., Burle, B., Grapperon, J., & Hasbroucq, T. (2011). An ERP study of cognitive architecture and the insertion of mental processes: Donders revisited. Psychophysiology, 48(9), 1242-1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vidal, F., Grapperon, J., Bonnet, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2003). The nature of unilateral motor commands in between hand choice tasks as revealed by surface Laplacian estimation. Psychophysiology, 40(5), 796-805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Davranche
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laurence Carbonnell
    • 1
  • Clément Belletier
    • 1
    • 3
  • Franck Vidal
    • 2
  • Pascal Huguet
    • 1
    • 4
  • Thibault Gajdos
    • 1
  • Thierry Hasbroucq
    • 2
  1. 1.Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, LPCMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, LNCMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Département de PsychologieUniversité de FribourgFribourgSwitzerland
  4. 4.Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LAPSCOClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations