Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Two experiments investigated relative spatial coding in the Simon effect. It was hypothesized that relative spatial coding is carried out with reference to the position of the focus of visual attention. The spatial code for an imperative stimulus presented exactly at the position of focal attention should be neutral on the horizontal plane, and therefore no Simon effect should be observed. However, when the imperative stimulus is presented to the left or to the right of the current position of focal attention, the spatial code should not be neutral, thus producing a Simon effect. In both experiments, focal attention was manipulated either by a peripherally presented onset precue (Experiment 1) or by a centrally presented symbolic precue (Experiment 2). Results showed that the Simon effect was substantially reduced in both experiments when a valid precue preceded the imperative stimulus just in time to conclude refocusing of attention to the position of the imperative stimulus before it was presented. However, conditions with neutral precues yielded a normally sized Simon effect. In both experiments, the Simon effect decreased as the SOA grew when the precue was valid. At least for the Simon effect, the results can be interpreted as evidence that relative spatial coding is functionally related to the position of the focus of attention.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neuropsychological 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 

  • Arend, K., & Wandmacher, J. (1987). On the generality of logical recoding in spatial interference tasks. Acta Psychologica, 65, 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, G., & Driver, J. (1992). Visual parsing and response competition: The effect of grouping factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castiello, U., & Umiltá, C. (1990). Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing. Acta Psychologica, 73, 195–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W. & St James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondence on two-choice response time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijden, A. H. C. van der (1989). Probability matching in visual selective attention. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 43, 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijden, A. H. C. van der (1992). Selective attention in vision. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijden, A. H. C. van der (1993). The role of position in object selection in vision. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forsch, 56, 44–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993 a). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, Psychologische Forschung, 56, 208–222.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasureman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamberts, K., Tavernier, & 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, G. L., & Simon, J. R. (1980). Response selection in choice reaction time: Task of a buffer model. Memory & Cognition, 8, 606–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O. (1983). Über den Zusammenhang zwischen Enge und Selektivität der Aufmerksamkeit. Bochum: Bericht Nr. 19, Pschologisches Institut der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Arbeitseinheit Kognitionspsychologie.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., & Umiltá, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationship between perception and action (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., Reeve, T. G., & van Zandt, T. (1992). Salient-features coding in response selection. In G. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 727–741). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafal, R. D., Calabresi, P. A., Brennan, C. W., & Sciolto, T. K. (1989). Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 361–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remington, R., & Pierce, L. (1984). Moving attention: Evidence for time-invariant shifts of visual selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 393–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, L., Gawryszewski, L., & Umiltà, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62, 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltà, C. (1987). Reorienting of attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, G. L., Remington, R. W., & McLean, J. P. (1979). Moving attention through visual space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 522–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1969). Reaction toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 1974–1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor and T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Acosta, E., 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 

  • Sokolov, E. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex, New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffer, T. H. (1993). The time course of attentional zooming: A comparison of voluntary and involuntary allocation of attention to the levels of compound stimuli. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 56, 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichner, W. H., & Krebs, M. J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 81, 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theeuwes, J. (1991). Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P., Lortie, C., & Baylis, G. C. (1992). Selective reaching: Evidence for action-centered attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 891–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsal, Y. (1983). Movements of attention across the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 523–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 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 (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Verfaellie, M., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1990). Attentional processes in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 261–275). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, C. B., Juola, J. F., & Koshino, H. (1990). Voluntary allocation versus automatic capture of visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 243–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Leopoldstrasse 13, D-80802, München, Germany

    Thomas H. Stoffer

  2. Max-Planck-Institut für psychologische Forschung, München, Germany

    André R. Yakin

Authors
  1. Thomas H. Stoffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. André R. Yakin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas H. Stoffer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stoffer, T.H., Yakin, A.R. The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect. Psychol. Res 56, 151–162 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419702

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419702

Keywords

Search

Navigation