Elsevier

Human Movement Science

Volume 15, Issue 4, August 1996, Pages 543-564
Human Movement Science

The Simon effect: Evidence of a response processing “functional locus”

https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(96)00021-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Three factors; stimulus-response Compatibility Degree (compatible vs. incompatible), Hand Condition (between-hand vs. within-hand finger responses) and Precue Condition (valid precue, invalid precue, no-precue) served as the main factors in a choice reaction time (RT) task where response selection was determined by letter identity (stimulus location was irrelevant). Hand Condition by Compatibility Degree was the only significant interaction obtained, reflective of the fact that the RT(compatible) < RT(incompatible) inequality [i.e., the Simon effect] was greater for the within-hand than for the between-hand condition. This result supports Stoffer's (1991) contention that the “functional locus” of the Simon effect is positioned at the point of response inhibition. Furthermore, the data obtained indicated that a post-stimulus attention shift was not a prerequisite condition for the production of a Simon effect. Finally, the Simon effect procedure appears to prevent response factors from influencing the ‘spatial precue effect’ [RT(valid precue) < RT(invalid precue)] in a biased fashion.

References (33)

  • E. Buckolz et al.

    Escaping response interference in a choice reaction time task I: without post-stimulus involvement

  • M.G.H. Coles et al.

    A psychophysical investigation of the continuous flow model human information processing

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1985)
  • R. DeJong et al.

    Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1994)
  • C.W. Eriksen et al.

    An electromyographic examination of response competition

    Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

    (1985)
  • P.M. Fitts et al.

    SR compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes

    Journal of Experimental Psychology

    (1953)
  • W.J. Gehring et al.

    Probability effects on stimulus evaluation and response processes

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1992)
  • Cited by (16)

    • A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect

      2019, Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      If the object-based CE is at least in part due to affordance effects, then we would expect between-hand responses to yield larger CEs due to presence of both spatial and affordance CEs. Conversely, according to a purely spatial account, we would expect no moderation by response mode, since spatial CEs are not sensitive to within-hand responses (Buckolz et al., 1996; Gerlach et al., 2002). An affordance account predicts that, when responding with crossed hands, CEs should emerge relative to the response hand, and not the response location.

    • Dissociating influences of key and hand separation on the Stroop color-identification effect

      2012, Acta Psychologica
      Citation Excerpt :

      They said, “Therefore, we can conclude that the spatial S–R compatibility effect for two-finger choice reactions itself essentially depends on the purely spatial rather than anatomical relations of the responses” (p. 126). With regard to the Simon effect, for which stimulus location is irrelevant, evidence indicates that the Simon effect is at least as large for within-hand keypresses as for between-hand keypresses (Buckolz, O'Donnell, & McAuliffe, 1996; Heister, Ehrenstein, & Schroeder-Heister, 1987; Katz, 1981). Heister et al. (1987) found large Simon effects of approximately 50 ms for within-hand responses, with both the palm up and palm down.

    • Response preparation modulates interference from irrelevant spatial information

      2006, Acta Psychologica
      Citation Excerpt :

      “Intentional” cues are symbols (e.g. arrowheads) that indicate the location of the required response with high validity. Several studies found no effects of attentional cueing on the Simon effect (e.g. Buckolz, O’Donnell, & McAuliffe, 1996; Proctor, Lu, & Van Zandt, 1992; Verfaellie, Bowers, & Heilman, 1988; Wascher & Wolber, 2004). In contrast, intentional cueing has been found to affect the Simon effect.

    • Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions

      2011, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
    • The object-based simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part?

      2010, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text