Top

Gepubliceerd in:

07-04-2017 | Original Article

On the time-course of automatic response activation in the Simon task

Auteurs: Ruben Ellinghaus, Matthias Karlbauer, Karin M. Bausenhart, Rolf Ulrich

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2018

Abstract

The Simon effect (prolonged RT when the task-irrelevant stimulus location is incongruent with the response side) has been reported to decrease at longer RTs, which is reflected in negative-going delta functions. This finding has been attributed to gradual dissipation of the response automatically activated by the task-irrelevant location information. The Diffusion Model for Conflict Tasks (DMC, Ulrich, Schröter, Leuthold, & Birngruber, Cognitive Psychology 78:148–174, 2015) formally specifies the time-course of this automatic activation process as a pulse-like function. In contrast to alternative views, DMC is consistent with the notion that this time-course is unaffected by the presentation duration of the target stimulus. Therefore, we expected that delta functions are invariant against changes of stimulus duration. This prediction was verified in two Simon task experiments. Consistent with this general result, DMC’s parameter τ which defines the time-course of the automatic response activation was estimated to not meaningfully differ between short and long durations. We argue that our results are coherent with processing architectures that assume a transient automatic process that is virtually unaffected by stimulus duration.

vorige artikel Effects of auditory distraction on voluntary movements: exploring the underlying mechanisms associated with parallel processing

volgende artikel Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes

For stability analysis, we explored whether our main results would remain unchanged when DPs are constructed with a different number of percentiles. Therefore, we conducted the same analysis with 5 percentiles (quintiles) and 19 percentiles (ventiles). Most important and analogous to the analysis reported in the main body of the text, the threefold interaction between stimulus duration, congruency, and percentile was insignificant with 5 and 19 percentiles F(4, 76) = 1.23, p = .293 and F(18, 342) = 0.91, p = .404, respectively, while the twofold interaction of congruency and percentile was significant with 5 bins F(4, 76) = 9.13, p = .001 and also with 19 bins, F(18, 342) = 7.33, p < .001.

Like in Experiment 1, we examined whether our main results would remain unchanged when DPs are constructed with 5 percentiles (quintiles) and 19 percentiles (ventiles). Again, the threefold interaction between stimulus duration, congruency, and percentile was insignificant with 5 and 19 percentiles F(4, 76) = 1.25, p = .297 and F(18, 342) = 0.69, p = .510, respectively, while the twofold interaction of congruency and percentile was significant with both 5 and 19 percentiles, F(4, 76) = 15.55, p < .001, and F(18, 342) = 12.13, p < .001, respectively.

We are well aware of the possibility that the true effect may be too small to be detected by the present experiments due to insufficient statistical power. Power calculations with the function “pwr.f2.test” of the R package “pwr” reveal a power of approximately 87% for detecting a medium effect (i.e., Cohen’s f2 = 0.15) after correcting the degrees of freedom for violation of sphericity (i.e., ε = 0.6, estimated from our results) according to (Geisser & Greenhouse, **1958). Therefore, the probability of detecting a medium effect (i.e., f2 = 0.35; Cohen, 1988) in at least of one of the two experiments would be 1-(1-0.87)² = 0.98. A similar calculation shows that a sample size of n = 117 per experiment would be required to detect a small effect (f2 = 0.02) with probability 95% in at least of one of the two experiments assuming again ε = 0.6.

Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., & Watson, J. M. (2008). Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 495–523.CrossRef

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.CrossRefPubMed

Burle, B., van den Wildenberg, W., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2005). Dynamics of facilitation and interference in cue-priming and Simon tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 619–641.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hilldale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.CrossRefPubMed

Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 529–553.

Dambacher, M., & Hübner, R. (2015). Time pressure affects the efficiency of perceptual processing in decisions under conflict. Psychological Research, 79, 83–94.CrossRefPubMed

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 & Performance, 20, 731–750.

Ellinghaus, R., & Miller, J. (in press). Delta plots with negative-going slopes as a potential marker of decreasing response activation in masked semantic priming. Psychological Research.

Geisser, S., & Greenhouse, S. W. (1958). An extension of Box’s results on the use of the F-distribution in multivariate analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29, 885–891.CrossRef

Heathcote, A., Popiel, S., & Mewhort, D. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340–347.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 55, 280–290.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 56, 261–268.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189–202.CrossRefPubMed

Hübner, R., Steinhauser, M., & Lehle, C. (2010). A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychological Review, 117, 759–784.CrossRefPubMed

Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. G. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36, 1.

Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523–553.CrossRefPubMed

Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174.CrossRef

Lu, C., & Proctor, R. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.CrossRef

Mattler, U. (2003). Delayed flanker effects on lateralized readiness potentials. Experimental Brain Research, 151, 272–288.CrossRefPubMed

Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.CrossRefPubMed

Nelder, B. J. A., & Mead, R. (1964). A simplex method for function minimization. The Computer Journal, 7, 308–313.CrossRef

Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action. Consciousness & Self-Regulation, 4, 1–18.

Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.CrossRefPubMed

Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pratte, M. S., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Feng, C. (2010). Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 2013–2025.CrossRef

Proctor, R. W., Miles, J. D., & Baroni, G. (2011). Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 242–266.CrossRef

Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108.CrossRef

Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333–367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002a). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action, attention and performance XIX (pp. 494–519). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002b). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66, 312–323.CrossRefPubMed

Ruthruff, E. (1996). A test of the deadline model for speed-accuracy tradeoffs. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 56–64.CrossRef

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRef

Schwarz, W., & Miller, J. (2012). Response time models of delta plots with negative-going slopes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 555–574.CrossRef

Servant, M., Montagnini, A., & Burle, B. (2014). Conflict tasks and the diffusion framework: Insight in model constraints based on psychological laws. Cognitive Psychology, 72, 162–195.CrossRefPubMed

Servant, M., White, C., Montagnini, A., & Burle, B. (2016). Liniking theoretical decision-making mechanisms in the Simon task with electrophysiological data: A model-based neuroscience study in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 1501–1521.CrossRefPubMed

Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Parsing a cognitive task: A characterization of the mind’s bottleneck. Plos Biology, 3, 334–349.CrossRef

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

Simon, J. R., Acosta, E., Mewaldt, S. P., & Speidel, C. R. (1976). The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on choice reaction time: Duration of the phenomenon and its relation to stages of processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 16–22.CrossRef

Smith, P. L., & Ratcliff, R. (2009). An integrated theory of attention and decision making in visual signal detection. Psychological Review, 116, 283–317.CrossRefPubMed

Stone, M. (1960). Models for choice-reaction time. Psychometrika, 25, 251–260.CrossRef

Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ulrich, R., Rinkenauer, G., & Miller, J. (1998). Effects of stimulus duration and intensity on simple reaction time and response force. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 915–928.PubMed

Ulrich, R., Schröter, H., Leuthold, H., & Birngruber, T. (2015). Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 148–174.CrossRefPubMed

Ulrich, R., Schröter, H., Leuthold, H., & Birngruber, T. (2016). Corrigendum to Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions [Cogn. Psychol. 78 (2015) 148–174]. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 150.CrossRefPubMed

Vallesi, A., Mapelli, D., Schiff, S., Amodio, P., & Umiltà, C. (2005). Horizontal and vertical Simon effect: different underlying mechanisms? Cognition, 96, B33–B43.CrossRefPubMed

Vallesi, A., & Umiltà, C. A. (2009). Decay of stimulus spatial code in horizontal and vertical Simon tasks. The Journal of General Psychology, 136, 350–373.CrossRefPubMed

Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2005). Dynamic aspects of stimulus-response correspondence: evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 31, 453–464.CrossRefPubMed

Xiong, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2016). Decreasing auditory Simon effects across reaction time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 23–38.PubMed

Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1997). Distributional analysis and De Jong, Liang, and Lauber’s (1994) dual-process model of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1543–1551.

Titel: On the time-course of automatic response activation in the Simon task
Auteurs: Ruben Ellinghaus
Matthias Karlbauer
Karin M. Bausenhart
Rolf Ulrich
Publicatiedatum: 07-04-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0860-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2018

Attention or instruction: Do sustained attentional abilities really differ between high and low hypnotisable persons?

Effects of auditory distraction on voluntary movements: exploring the underlying mechanisms associated with parallel processing

Emotional faces influence evaluation of natural and transformed food

Contingency and contiguity of imitative behaviour affect social affiliation

Hierarchical task organization in dual tasks: evidence for higher level task representations

Perceptual impressions of causality are affected by common fate