Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect

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

Abstract

Recent findings suggest that a Simon effect (SE) can be induced in Individual go/nogo tasks when responding next to an event-producing object salient enough to provide a reference for the spatial coding of one’s own action. However, there is skepticism against referential coding for the joint Simon effect (JSE) by proponents of task co-representation. In the present study, we tested assumptions of task co-representation and referential coding by introducing unexpected double response events in a joint go/nogo and a joint independent go/nogo task. In Experiment 1b, we tested if task representations are functionally similar in joint and standard Simon tasks. In Experiment 2, we tested sequential updating of task co-representation after unexpected single response events in the joint independent go/nogo task. Results showed increased JSEs following unexpected events in the joint go/nogo and joint independent go/nogo task (Experiment 1a). While the former finding is in line with the assumptions made by both accounts (task co-representation and referential coding), the latter finding supports referential coding. In contrast to Experiment 1a, we found a decreased SE after unexpected events in the standard Simon task (Experiment 1b), providing evidence against the functional equivalence assumption between joint and two-choice Simon tasks of the task co-representation account. Finally, we found an increased JSE also following unexpected single response events (Experiment 2), ruling out that the findings of the joint independent go/nogo task in Experiment 1a were due to a re-conceptualization of the task situation. In conclusion, our findings support referential coding also for the joint 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

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We controlled the amount of single and double responses on the confederate side in both task sets by presenting one tone (350 Hz) via headphones to the confederate. This was done to minimize erroneous responses on the confederate’s side. In both task sets, this tone was always presented via the headphones of the confederate when a square was presented on the monitor (i.e., in 50 % of all trials) and in rare cases (7 % of all trials) this tone was also presented when a diamond was presented on the monitor resulting in the required double response.

  2. To compute a separate ANOVA considering Response type in N-2, Response type in N-1 and Compatibility the amount of trials was too low due to the planned low number of double response trials and hence results of such an ANOVA would not be very meaningful.

  3. A separate ANOVA considering both responses in double response trials (by averaging both RTs) revealed the same results indicating that response buttons for both stimuli were pressed in close temporal proximity.

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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 371–385.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., Prinz, W., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Action co-representation: the joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience, 3, 410–420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barcelo, F., Escera, C., Corral, M. J., & Periánez, J. A. (2006). Task switching and novelty processing activate a common neural network for cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1734–1748.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berti, S. (2008). Cognitive control after distraction: event-related brain potentials (ERP) dissociate between different processes of attentional allocation. Psychophysiology, 45, 608–620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berti, S., Roeber, U., & Schröger, E. (2004). Bottom-up influences on working memory: behavioral and electrophysiological distraction varies with distractor strength. Experimental Psychology, 51, 249–257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2004). Distraction effects in vision: behavioral and event-related potential indices. NeuroReport, 15, 665–669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colzato, L. S., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Hommel, B. (2013). Increasing self-other integration through divergent thinking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1011–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 84. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00084.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014a). The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 974. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1248–1260.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014b). The joint flanker effect: less social as previously thought. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1224–1230. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0583-8.

  • Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Colzato, R., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 849–937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iani, C., Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., Arcuri, L., & Rubichi, S. (2011). The role of group membership on the modulation of joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 439–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Dover Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kiernan, D., Ray, M., & Welsh, T. N. (2012). Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 914–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: conflict basis for stimulus-response compatibility: a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 252–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). How two share two tasks: evidence of a social psychological refractory period effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 387–396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., Schneider, J., Aichert, D. S., Wöstmann, N., Dehning, S., Möller, H.-J., et al. (2012a). Action blind: disturbed self-other integration in schizophrenia. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3775–3780.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., Stenzel, A., & Lappe, M. (2012b). Specifying social cognitive processes with a social dual-task paradigm. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 86. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00086.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the social Simon paradigm. Psychological Research, 77, 240–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 366–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of the irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, B. C. N., Brass, M., Kühn, S., Tsai, C. C., Nieuwboer, W., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B. (2011a). When pinoccio acts like a human, a wooden hand becomes embodied. Action co-representation for non-biological agents. Neuropsychologica, 49, 1373–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, B. C. N., Kühn, S., van Baaren, R. B., Dotsch, R., Brass, M., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011b). Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members’ actions. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 423–428.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, B. C. N., Oostendorp, A. K., Kühn, S., Brass, M., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B. When triangles become human: action co-representation for objects. Interaction Studies. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-4381886 (in press)

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert, W., Houtman, F., Van Opstal, F., Gevers, W., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2009). Post-error slowing: an orienting account. Cognition, 111, 275–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2011). Conflict and error adaptation in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 136, 212–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nunez Castellar, E., Kühn, S., Fias, W., & Notebaert, W. (2010). Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 270–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmentier, F. B. R., & Andrés, P. (2010). The involuntary capture of attention by sound: novelty and postnovelty distraction in young and older adults. Experimental Psychology, 57, 68–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parmentier, F. B. R., Elsley, J. V., Andrés, P., & Barcélo, F. (2011). Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change. Cognition, 119, 374–380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Mirco- and macro-adjustments of task set: activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 312–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ridderinkhof, K. R., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Wijnen, J., & Burle, B. (2004). Response inhibition in conflict tasks is revealed in delta plots. In M. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys, K. I., & Aarts, H. (2010). When competition merges people’s behavior: interdependency activates shared action representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1130–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröger, E. (1996). A neural mechanism for involuntary attention shifts to changes in auditory stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 527–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schröger, E., Giard, M. H., & Wolff, C. (2000). Auditory distraction: event-related potential and behavioral indices. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 1450–1460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schröger, E., & Wolff, C. (1998). Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: a new distraction paradigm. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 71–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: corepresenting stimulus-response mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  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 Advances in Psychology (vol 65) (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal for Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado Bou, M. A., del Pobil, A. P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: co-representation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1073–1077.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stock, A., & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68, 176–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Treccani, B., Umiltá, C., & Tagliabue, M. (2006). Simon effect with and without awareness of the accessory stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 268–286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vlainic, E., Liepelt, R., Colzato, L. S., Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (2010). The virtual co-actor: the social Simon effect does not rely on online feedback from the other. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 208. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.

  • Welsh, T. N., Higgins, L., Ray, M., & Weeks, D. J. (2007). Seeing vs. believing: is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? Human Movement Science, 26, 853–866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wenke, D., Atmaca, S., Holländer, A., Liepelt, R., Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2011). What is shared in joint action? Issues of co-representation, response conflict, and agent identification. The Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 147–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkel, J., Wijnen, J. G., Danielmeier, C., Groen, I. I. A., Derrfuss, J., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Forstmann, B. U. (2012). Observed and self-experienced conflict induce similar behavioral and neural adaptation. Social Neuroscience, 7, 385–397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winkel, J., Wijnen, J. G., Ridderinkhoff, K. R., Groen, I. I. A., Derrfuss, J., Danielmeier, C., & Forstmann, B. U. (2009). Your conflict matters to me! Behavioral and neural manifestations of control adjustment after self-experienced and observed decision-conflict. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 57. doi:10.3389/neuro.09.057.2009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present research was financially supported by the German Research Foundation Grants DFG LI 2115/1-1; 1-3 awarded to R. L. We would like to thank Kerstin Dittrich, Barbara Müller and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Junior Group “Neurocognition of Joint Action”, Institute for Psychology, University of Muenster, Fliednerstraße 21, 48149, Muenster, Germany

    Bibiana Klempova & Roman Liepelt

Authors
  1. Bibiana Klempova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roman Liepelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bibiana Klempova or Roman Liepelt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klempova, B., Liepelt, R. Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect. Psychological Research 80, 449–463 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0664-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0664-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation