Skip to main content
Log in

Inverting the Simon effect by intention

Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information

Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The Simon effect indicates that choice reactions can be performed more quickly if the response corresponds spatially to the stimulus - even when stimulus location is irrelevant to the task. Two experiments tested an intentional approach to the Simon effect that assigns a critical role to the cognitively represented action goal (i. e., the intended action effect). It was assumed that the direction of the Simon effect depends on stimulus-goal correspondence, that is, that responses are faster with spatial correspondence of stimulus and intended action effect. Experiment 1 confirmed that the direction of the Simon effect was determined by spatial correspondence of stimulus and intended action effect, the latter having been manipulated by different instructions. Experiment 2 indicated that effects of correspondences unrelated to the action goal (i. e., stimulus to hand location or to anatomical mapping of the hand), contributed additively to the resulting Simon effect. It is discussed how current approaches to the Simon effect can be elaborated to account for these results.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anzola, G. P., Bertolini, G., Buchtel, H. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1977). Spatial compatibility and anatomical factors in simple and choice reaction times. Neuropsychologia, 15, 295–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, J. L., Bradshaw, J. A., Pierson-Savage, J. M., & Nettleton, N. C. (1988). Overt and covert attention and vibrotactile reaction times: Gaze direction, spatial compatibility and hemispatial asymmetry. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brebner, J. (1973). S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice. Acta Psychologica, 37, 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brebner, J., Shepard, M., & Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S-R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 36, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callan, J., Klisz, D., & Parsons, O. A. (1974). Strength of auditory stimulus-response compatibility as a function of task complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 1039–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 331–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward a conceptual clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 246–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, W. L. (1988). Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–221.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Merz, F., Kalveram, K. T., & Huber, K. (1981). Der Einfluss kognitiver Faktoren auf Steuerleistu:ngen. In L. Tent (Ed.), Erkennen, Wollen, Handeln (pp. 327–335). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, C. F. (1988). S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., & Umilta, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 664–673.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder-Heister, P., Heister, G., & Ehrenstein, W. H. (1988). Spatial S-R compatibility under head tilt. Acta Psychologica, 69, 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1967). Choice reaction time as a function of auditory S-R correspondence, age and sex. Ergonomics, 10, 659–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Acosta Jr., E. (1982). Effect of irrelevant information on the processing of relevant information: Facilitation and/or interference? The influence of experimental design. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 383–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., Hinrichs, J. V., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Auditory S-R compatibility: Reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoffels, E.-J., Van der Molen, M. W., & Keuss, P. J. G. (1989). An additive factors analysis of the effect(s) of location cues associated with auditory stimulation on stages of information processing. Acta Psychologica, 70, 161–197.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial S-R compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 163–168.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hommel, B. Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychol. Res 55, 270–279 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419687

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419687

Keywords

Navigation