Abstract
TheSimon effect denotes faster responses when the task-irrelevant stimulus position corresponds to the response position than when it does not. Accounts of this effect assume that stimulus position automatically activates a spatially corresponding response while the correct response is being computed. Yet the Simon effect has been found to be reduced after noncorresponding trials. Some authors have interpreted these sequential modulations of the Simon effect as evidence for a mechanism gating positionbased response activation. Alternatively, sequential modulations have been explained in terms of feature-integration processes, which depend upon the fact that different sequences of spatial-correspondence conditions covary with different degrees of feature overlap between subsequent trials. The present study investigates whether sequential modulations of the Simon effect can occur when feature overlap in the different conditions is the same. Therefore, a Simon task with four stimulus positions and two response positions was used. Sequential modulations of the Simon effect were found in trial sequences with constant amounts of feature overlap between trials. Although the feature-integration account cannot explain this result, it is consistent with the idea of a gating (i.e., cognitive control) mechanism.
Article PDF
References
Barber, P. J.,&O’Leary, M. J. (1997). The relevance of salience: Towards an activational account of irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility effects. In B. Hommel& W. Prinz (Eds.),Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 135–172). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
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.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H.,&Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 480–506.
Hommel, B. (1996). No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes.Perception& Psychophysics,58, 102–110.
Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel& W. Prinz (Eds.),Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp.281–3200). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes.Visual Cognition,5, 183–216.
Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W.,& Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A featureintegration account of sequential effects in the Simon task.Psychological Research,68, 1–17.
Lu, C.-H.,&Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects.Psychonomic Bulletin& Review,2, 174–207.
Notebaert, W., Soetens, E.,&Melis, A. (2001). Sequential analysis of a Simon task: Evidence for an attention-shift account.Psychological Research,65, 170–184.
Praamstra, P., Kleine, B. U.,&Schnitzler, A. (1999). Magnetic stimulation of the dorsal premotor cortex modulates the Simon effect.NeuroReport,10, 3671–3674.
Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical classification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz& B. Hommel (Eds.),Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 494–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R.,&Umiltà, C. (2005). Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes.Psychological Research,69, 167–178.
Simon, J. R.,&Berbaum, K. (1990). Effect of conflicting cues on information processing: The “Stroop effect” vs. the “Simon effect”.Acta Psychologica,73, 159–170.
Stoet, G. &Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception& Performance,25, 1625–1640.
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& Performance,28, 1345–1363.
Valle-Inclán, F., Hackley, S. A.,&de Labra, C. (2002). Does stimulus-driven response activation underlie the Simon effect? In W. Prinz& B. Hommel (Eds.),Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 474–493). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Selst, M.,&Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 631–650.
Vu, K.-P. L.,&Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in twodimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions.Perception& Psychophysics,64, 815–828.
Wühr, P. (2004). Sequential modulation of logical-recoding operations in the Simon task.Experimental Psychology,51, 98–108.
Wühr, P.,&Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58A, 705–731.
Zhang, H., Zhang, J.,&Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response compatibility.Cognitive Psychology,38, 386–432.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
W:uhr, P. Evidence for gating of direct response activation in the Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 282–288 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196373
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196373