Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 4/2016

02-04-2015 | Original Article

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

Auteurs: Bibiana Klempova, Roman Liepelt

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2016

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

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.
volgende artikel Does the anticipation of compatible partner reactions facilitate action planning in joint tasks?
Voetnoten
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.
 
Literatuur
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
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., Prinz, W., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Action co-representation: the joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience, 3, 410–420.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
Berti, S. (2008). Cognitive control after distraction: event-related brain potentials (ERP) dissociate between different processes of attentional allocation. Psychophysiology, 45, 608–620.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2004). Distraction effects in vision: behavioral and event-related potential indices. NeuroReport, 15, 665–669.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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
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.CrossRefPubMed
Hommel, B. (1993a). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261–268.CrossRefPubMed
Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571.CrossRef
Hommel, B., Colzato, R., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Dover Publications.CrossRef
Kiernan, D., Ray, M., & Welsh, T. N. (2012). Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 914–920.CrossRef
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: conflict basis for stimulus-response compatibility: a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 252–270.CrossRef
Liepelt, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). How two share two tasks: evidence of a social psychological refractory period effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 387–396.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.PubMed
Notebaert, W., Houtman, F., Van Opstal, F., Gevers, W., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2009). Post-error slowing: an orienting account. Cognition, 111, 275–279.CrossRefPubMed
Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2011). Conflict and error adaptation in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 136, 212–216.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–196.CrossRef
Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Mirco- and macro-adjustments of task set: activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 312–323.CrossRefPubMed
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.
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.CrossRef
Schröger, E. (1996). A neural mechanism for involuntary attention shifts to changes in auditory stimulation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 527–539.CrossRefPubMed
Schröger, E., Giard, M. H., & Wolff, C. (2000). Auditory distraction: event-related potential and behavioral indices. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 1450–1460.CrossRefPubMed
Schröger, E., & Wolff, C. (1998). Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: a new distraction paradigm. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 71–87.CrossRefPubMed
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.CrossRefPubMed
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
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.
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.CrossRef
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
Stock, A., & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68, 176–188.CrossRefPubMed
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
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metagegevens
Titel
Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect
Auteurs
Bibiana Klempova
Roman Liepelt
Publicatiedatum
02-04-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0664-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2016

Psychological Research 4/2016 Naar de uitgave

Original Article

Automaticity in fast lexical decision sequential effects: much like telling left from right

Original Article

Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure

Original Article

The roles of stimulus and response uncertainty in forced-choice performance: an amendment to Hick/Hyman Law

Original Article

Does the anticipation of compatible partner reactions facilitate action planning in joint tasks?

Erratum

Erratum to: Route and survey processing of topographical memory during navigation

Original Article

Cue-type manipulation dissociates two types of task set inhibition: backward inhibition and competitor rule suppression