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 6/2018

08-07-2017 | Original Article

Barriers to success: physical separation optimizes event-file retrieval in shared workspaces

Auteurs: Bibiana Klempova, Roman Liepelt

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2018

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

Sharing tasks with other persons can simplify our work and life, but seeing and hearing other people's actions may also be very distracting. The joint Simon effect (JSE) is a standard measure of referential response coding when two persons share a Simon task. Sequential modulations of the joint Simon effect (smJSE) are interpreted as a measure of event-file processing containing stimulus information, response information and information about the just relevant control-state active in a given social situation. This study tested effects of physical (Experiment 1) and virtual (Experiment 2) separation of shared workspaces on referential coding and event-file processing using a joint Simon task. In Experiment 1, participants performed this task in individual (go–nogo), joint and standard Simon task conditions with and without a transparent curtain (physical separation) placed along the imagined vertical midline of the monitor. In Experiment 2, participants performed the same tasks with and without receiving background music (virtual separation). For response times, physical separation enhanced event-file retrieval indicated by an enlarged smJSE in the joint Simon task with curtain than without curtain (Experiment1), but did not change referential response coding. In line with this, we also found evidence for enhanced event-file processing through physical separation in the joint Simon task for error rates. Virtual separation did neither impact event-file processing, nor referential coding, but generally slowed down response times in the joint Simon task. For errors, virtual separation hampered event-file processing in the joint Simon task. For the cognitively more demanding standard two-choice Simon task, we found music to have a degrading effect on event-file retrieval for response times. Our findings suggest that adding a physical separation optimizes event-file processing in shared workspaces, while music seems to lead to a more relaxed task processing mode under shared task conditions. In addition, music had an interfering impact on joint error processing and more generally when dealing with a more complex task in isolation.
vorige artikel The processing of price comparison is not holistic but componential
volgende artikel Communication for coordination: gesture kinematics and conventionality affect synchronization success in piano duos
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Referential coding allows separating internally and externally activated feature codes. Internally activated feature codes refer to the activation of representations of own intended anticipated action effects, while externally activated feature codes are those codes being perceived by other humans (Hommel, 2009; Hommel et al., 2001; Liepelt, von Cramon, & Prinz, 2008; Prinz, 1997) or event-producing objects (Dolk et al., 2013). Due to a common representational level of action perception, action imagination and action production (Prinz, 1997) own planned and perceived or imagined action effects produce an action discrimination conflict for action control. This conflict can be resolved by emphasizing (cf. intentional weighting principle; Memelink & Hommel, 2013) on features discriminating best between them in a given task context (Hommel, 1993; Hommel et al., 2001; Sellaro, Dolk, Colzato, Liepelt, & Hommel, 2015)—that in the joint Simon task is the spatial dimension.
 
2
For the standard Simon task go and nogo transitions refer to same and different response location, respectively (i.e., go=left response, nogo=right response).
 
3
We performed an additional ANOVA including the factors Order (with the 6 different orders performed) and Setting (joint vs. individual vs. standard Simon task) to rule out any order effects. The analysis revealed no significant main effect of Order, F(5, 16) = 0.75, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.19. We also did not find any significant interaction effects with the factor Order (Fs < 2.90, ps > 0.124), except a significant interaction of Order × Curtain × Setting × Transition, F(10, 35) = 2.90, p < 0.05, partial η 2 = 0.476.
 
4
For the standard Simon task go and nogo transitions refer to same and different response location, respectively (i.e., go=left response, nogo=right response).
 
5
The additional ANOVA including the factors Order (with the 6 different orders performed) and Setting (joint vs. individual vs. standard Simon task) performed to rule out any order effects revealed no significant main or interaction effect with the factor Order (Fs < 2.34, ps > 0.24).
 
Literatuur
Akcay, C., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 742–748.CrossRefPubMed
Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2009). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.
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
Banbury, S. P., & Berry, D. C. (2005). Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48, 25–37.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
Cassidy, G., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (2007). The effect of background music and background noise on the task performance of introverts and extraverts. Psychology of Music, 35, 517–537.CrossRef
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). The effects of background auditory interference and extraversion on creative and cognitive task performance. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1, p2.CrossRef
De Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Kuijer, P. P. F. M., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2005). The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: A systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48, 119–134.CrossRefPubMed
Dittrich, K., Bossert, M., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, C. (2017). The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: On the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.​1080/​17470218.​2016.​1207690.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 and 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 and Psychophysics, 74, 911–929.CrossRef
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, 974.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 1248–1260. doi:10.​1037/​a0031031.PubMed
Dolk, T., Liepelt, R., Villringer, A., Prinz, W., & Ragert, P. (2012). Morphometric gray matter differences of the medial frontal cortex influence the social Simon effect. Neuroimage, 61, 1249–1254.CrossRefPubMed
Furnham, A., & Allass, K. (1999). The influence of musical distraction on varying complexity on the cognitive-performance of extraverts and introverts. European Journal of Personality, 13, 27–38.CrossRef
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 121, 480–506.CrossRefPubMed
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
Hallam, S., Price, J., & Katsarou, G. (2002). The effects of background music on primary school pupils’ task performance. Educational Studies, 28, 112–122.CrossRef
Haynes, B. P. (2007). The impact of the behavioural environment on office productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 5, 158–171.CrossRef
Hilliard, O. M., & Tolin, P. (1979). Effects of familiarity with background music on performance of simple and difficult reading comprehension. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 713–714.CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.CrossRefPubMed
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRef
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.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
Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.CrossRefPubMed
Huang, R. H., & Shih, Y. N. (2011). Effects of background music on concentration of workers. Work, 38, 383–387.PubMed
Iwanaga, M., & Ito, T. (2002). Disturbance effect of music on processing verbal and spatial memories. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 1251–1258.CrossRefPubMed
Kämpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2010). The impact of background music on adult listeners: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 39, 424–448.CrossRef
Kiernan, D., Ray, M., & Welsh, T. N. (2012). Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 914–920.CrossRefPubMed
Kiger, D. (1989). The effects of music information load on a reading comprehension task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 531–534.CrossRef
Klempova, B., & Liepelt, R. (2015). Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon task. Psychological Research. doi:10.​1007/​s00426-015-0664-y.PubMed
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility – A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 252–270.CrossRef
Liepelt, R., Klempova, B., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Ragert, P., Nitsche, M. A., & Hommel, B. (2016). The medial frontal cortex mediates self-other discrimination in the joint Simon task: A tDCS study. Journal of Psychophysiology, 30, 87–101.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., von Cramon, Y., & Brass, M. (2008). How do we infer others’ goals from non-stereotypic actions? The outcome of context-sensitive inferential processing in right inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortex. Neuroimage, 43, 784–792.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., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 2, 174–207.CrossRef
MacDonald, R. A. R., Mitchell, L., Dillon, T., Serpell, M. G., Davis, J. B., & Ashley, E. A. (2003). An empirical investigation of the anxiolytic and pain reducing effects of music. Psychology of Music, 31, 187–203.CrossRef
Mayfield, C., & Moss, S. (1989). Effect of music tempo on task performance. Psychological Reports, 65, 1283–1290.CrossRefPubMed
Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.CrossRefPubMed
Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Spitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.CrossRefPubMed
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and driving game performance. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 285–292.CrossRef
Notebaert, W., Soetens, E., & Melis, A. (2001). Sequential modulation of a Simon task—evidence for an attention-shift account. Psychological Research, 65, 170–184.CrossRefPubMed
Philipp, A. M., & Prinz, W. (2010). Evidence for a role of the responding agent in the joint compatibility effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 1–13.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.CrossRef
Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C. H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory and Cognition, 27, 63–77.CrossRefPubMed
Ramenzoni, V. C., Davis, T. J., Riley, M. A., Shockley, K., & Baker, A. A. (2011). Joint action in a cooperative precision task: Nested processes of intrapersonal and interpersonal coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 447–457.CrossRefPubMed
Röder, B., Kusmierek, A., Spence, C., & Schicke, T. (2007). Developmental vision determines the reference frame for the multisensory control of action. PNAS, 104, 4753–4758.CrossRefPubMed
Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 493–502.CrossRef
Saklani, A., & Jha, S. (2014). Impact of ergonomic changes on office employee productivity. International Journal of Management Research, 2, 41–56.
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing other’s 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 mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.CrossRefPubMed
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: An ERP study on action planning and control in coacting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 859–870.CrossRefPubMed
Sebanz, N., Rebbechi, D., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Frith, C. D. (2007). Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing. Social Neuroscience, 2, 81–95.CrossRefPubMed
Seddigh, A., Berntson, E., Danielson, C. B., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 167–174.CrossRef
Sellaro, R., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Liepelt, R., & Hommel, B. (2015). Referential coding does not rely on location features: Evidence for a nonspatial joint Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 41, 186–195.CrossRefPubMed
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. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Shockley, K., Santana, M., & Fowler, C. A. (2003). Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 29, 326–332.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. A., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.CrossRefPubMed
Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 1117–1121.CrossRefPubMed
Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2010). Actions travel with their objects: Evidence for dynamic event files. Psychological Research, 74, 50–58.CrossRefPubMed
Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.CrossRefPubMed
Thompson, W. F., Schellenberg, E. G., & Husain, G. (2001). Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect. Psychological Science, 12, 248–251.CrossRefPubMed
Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (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
Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Long-term aftereffects of response inhibition: Memory retrieval, task goals, and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1229–1235.CrossRefPubMed
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. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 147–172.CrossRef
Winkel, J., Wijnen, J. G., Ridderinkhof, 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
Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 705–731.CrossRef
Yanni (1986). Nostalgia. Keys to Imagination [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.
Yanni (1993a). One man’s dream. In my time [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.
Yanni (1993b). The end of August. In my time [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.
Yanni (1993c). In the mirror. In my time [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.
Yanni (1993d). Until the last moment. In my time [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.
Metagegevens
Titel
Barriers to success: physical separation optimizes event-file retrieval in shared workspaces
Auteurs
Bibiana Klempova
Roman Liepelt
Publicatiedatum
08-07-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0886-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2018

Psychological Research 6/2018 Naar de uitgave

Original Article

The processing of price comparison is not holistic but componential

Original Article

Are young children able to learn exploratory strategies by observation?

Original Article

Action–effects enhance explicit sequential learning

Original Article

Why free choices take longer than forced choices: evidence from response threshold manipulations

Original Article

Perceptual similarity induces overinvestment in an attentional blink task

Original Article

Distinct and flexible rates of online control