Top

Gepubliceerd in:

18-08-2023 | Research

Similarities of SNARC, cognitive Simon, and visuomotor Simon effects in terms of response time distributions, hand-stimulus proximity, and temporal dynamics

Auteurs: Lizhu Yan, Yilin Ma, Weibin Yang, Xinrui Xiang, Weizhi Nan

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2024

Abstract

The spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) and Simon effects are attributed to the same type of conflict according to dimensional overlap (DO) theory: the congruency of task-irrelevant spatial information and the selected response (e.g., left or right). However, previous studies have yielded inconsistent results regarding the relationship between the two effects, with some studies reporting an interaction while others did not. This discrepancy may be attributed to the use of different types of Simon effects (visuomotor and cognitive Simon effects) in these studies, as the spatial codes associated with these two types of Simon effects are distinct (exogenous and endogenous, respectively). The aim of this study was to address these inconsistencies and gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences in spatial representations generated by spatial location, semantic information, and numerical information. We attempted to classify the relationships among the SNARC and Simon effects. Specifically, the visuomotor Simon, cognitive Simon, and SNARC effects were compared from three perspectives: the response time (RT) distribution, hand-stimulus proximity, and temporal dynamics (with the drift diffusion model; DDM). Regarding RTs, the results showed that the visuomotor Simon effect decreased with increased values of RT bins, while the cognitive Simon and SNARC effects increased. Additionally, the visuomotor Simon effect was the only effect influenced by hand-stimulus proximity, with a stronger effect observed in the hand-proximal condition than in the hand-distal condition. Regarding the DDM results, only the visuomotor Simon effect exhibited a higher drift rate and longer non-decision time in the incompatible condition than in the compatible condition. Conversely, both the SNARC and cognitive Simon effects exhibited an inverse pattern regarding the drift rate and no significant difference in non-decision time between the two conditions. These findings suggest that the SNARC effect is more similar to the cognitive Simon effect than the visuomotor Simon effect, indicating that the endogenous spatial-numerical representation of the SNARC effect might share an underlying processing mechanism with the endogenous spatial–semantic representation of the cognitive Simon effect but not with the exogenous location representation of the visuomotor Simon effect. Our results further demonstrate that the origin of spatial information could impact the classification of conflicts and supplement DO theory.

vorige artikel Right-left hand asymmetry in manual tracking: when poorer control is associated with better adaptation and interlimb transfer

volgende artikel The basis of S–R learning: associations between individual stimulus features and responses

Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693–728.PubMedCrossRef

Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.09.006CrossRefPubMed

Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2011). Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408885CrossRef

Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: a computational model. Psychological Review, 114(4), 1076–1086.PubMedCrossRef

Boag, R. J., Strickland, L., Heathcote, A., Neal, A., & Loft, S. (2019). Cognitive control and capacity for prospective memory in complex dynamic environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(12), 2181–2206.PubMedCrossRef

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.PubMedCrossRef

Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769–783.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Brown, L. E., Kroliczak, G., Demonet, J. F., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). A hand in blindsight: hand placement near target improves size perception in the blind visual field. Neuropsychologia, 46(3), 786–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.006CrossRefPubMed

Bruyer, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: Is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)?. Psychologica Belgica, 51(1), 5–13.

Cao, Y., Cao, X., Yue, Z., & Wang, L. (2017). Temporal and spectral dynamics underlying cognitive control modulated by task-irrelevant stimulus–response learning. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(1), 158–173.CrossRef

Castel, A. D., Balota, D. A., Hutchison, K. A., Logan, J. M., & Yap, M. J. (2007). Spatial attention and response control in healthy younger and older adults and individuals with Alzheimer’s disease: evidence for disproportionate selection impairments in the Simon task. Neuropsychology, 21(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.170CrossRefPubMed

Cutini, S., Scarpa, F., Scatturin, P., Dell’Acqua, R., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Number-space interactions in the human parietal cortex: enlightening the SNARC effect with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Cerebral Cortex, 24(2), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs321CrossRefPubMed

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(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731CrossRefPubMed

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371CrossRef

Dillon, D. G., Wiecki, T., Pechtel, P., Webb, C., Goer, F., Murray, L., Trivedi, M., Fava, M., McGrath, P. J., Weissman, M., Parsey, R., Kurian, B., Adams, P., Carmody, T., Weyandt, S., Shores-Wilson, K., Toups, M., McInnis, M., Oquendo, M. A., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2015). A computational analysis of flanker interference in depression. Psychological Medicine, 45(11), 2333–2344.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Dufour, A., & Touzalin, P. (2008). Improved visual sensitivity in the perihand space. Experimental Brain Research, 190, 91–98.PubMedCrossRef

Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 12.CrossRef

Englert, J., & Wentura, D. (2016). Hand posture and cognitive control: the congruency sequence effect is reduced near the hands. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1582–1588. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1000-2CrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.PubMedCrossRef

Faulkenberry, T. J. (2018). Computing Bayes factors to measure evidence from experiments: An extension of the BIC approximation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.00360

Fitousi, D., & Algom, D. (2020). A model for two-digit number processing based on a joint Garner and system factorial technology analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(4), 676–700.PubMedCrossRef

Fröber, K., & Lerche, V. (2023). Performance-contingent reward increases the use of congruent distracting information. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85(3), 905–929.CrossRef

Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136CrossRef

Gevers, W., Caessens, B., & Fias, W. (2005). Towards a common processing architecture underlying Simon and SNARC effects. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440540000112CrossRef

Gevers, W., Santens, S., Dhooge, E., Chen, Q., Van den Bossche, L., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2010). Verbal-spatial and visuospatial coding of number-space interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(1), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017688CrossRefPubMed

Gozli, D. G., Ardron, J., & Pratt, J. (2014). Reduced visual feature binding in the near-hand space. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 76(5), 1308–1317.CrossRef

Gozli, D. G., West, G. L., & Pratt, J. (2012). Hand position alters vision by biasing processing through different visual pathways. Cognition, 124(2), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.008CrossRefPubMed

Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24(2), 95–112.

Heathcote, A., Lin, Y.-S., Reynolds, A., Strickland, L., Gretton, M., & Matzke, D. (2019). Dynamic models of choice. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2), 961–985.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 56(4), 261–268.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.PubMedCrossRef

Hubbard, E. M., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(6), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1684CrossRefPubMed

Keus, I. M., & Schwarz, W. (2005). Searching for the functional locus of the SNARC effect: Evidence for a response-related origin. Memory & Cognition, 33, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195335CrossRef

Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 56, 130–135.PubMedCrossRef

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270.PubMedCrossRef

Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 855–875.PubMed

Liepelt, R., & Fischer, R. (2016). Task demands determine hand posture bias on conflict processing in a Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 579–586. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0901-9CrossRef

Liu, X., Park, Y., Gu, X., & Fan, J. (2010). Dimensional overlap accounts for independence and integration of stimulus–response compatibility effects. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72(6), 1710–1720.CrossRef

Liu, T., Wang, D., Wang, C., Xiao, T., & Shi, J. (2022). The influence of reward anticipation on conflict control in children and adolescents: Evidences from hierarchical drift-diffusion model and event-related potentials. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 55, 101118.

Luo, C., & Proctor, R. W. (2020). Shared mechanisms underlying the location-, word- and arrow-based Simon effects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84(6), 1655–1667.PubMedCrossRef

Mapelli, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2003). The SNARC effect: an instance of the Simon effect? Cognition, 88(3), B1–B10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00042-8CrossRefPubMed

Mills, L., Kinoshita, S., & Norris, D. (2019). No negative priming effect in the manual Stroop task. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01764CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2018). BayseFactor: computation of bayes factors for common designs.

Moro, S. B., Dell’Acqua, R., & Cutini, S. (2018). The SNARC effect is not a unitary phenomenon. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 688–695. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1408-3CrossRef

Myers, C. E., Interian, A., & Moustafa, A. A. (2022). A practical introduction to using the drift diffusion model of decision-making in cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and health sciences. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1039172.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Nan, W., Yan, L., Yang, G., Liu, X., & Fu, S. (2021). Two processing stages of the SNARC effect. Psychological Research 86(2), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01506-5

Ninaus, M., Moeller, K., Kaufmann, L., Fischer, M. H., Nuerk, H. C., & Wood, G. (2017). Cognitive mechanisms underlying directional and non-directional spatial-numerical associations across the lifespan. Frontiers Psychology, 8, 1421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01421CrossRef

Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2006). Shared spatial representations for numbers and space: the reversal of the SNARC and the Simon effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(5), 1197–1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1197CrossRefPubMed

Pellegrino, G., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). Direct evidence from parietal extinction of enhancement of visual attention near a visible hand. Current Biology, 10(22), 1475–1477.CrossRef

Pellicano, A., Lugli, L., Baroni, G., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). The Simon effect with conventional signals: a time-course analysis. Experimental Psychology, 56(4), 219–227.PubMedCrossRef

Pinto, M., Pellegrino, M., Marson, F., Lasaponara, S., Cestari, V., D’Onofrio, M., & Doricchi, F. (2021). How to trigger and keep stable directional Space-Number Associations (SNAs). Cortex, 134, 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.10.020CrossRefPubMed

Pratte, M. S., Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., & Feng, C. (2010). Exploring the differences in distributional properties between stroop and Simon effects. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72(7), 2013–2025.CrossRef

Pressigout, A., & Dore-Mazars, K. (2020). How does number magnitude influence temporal and spatial parameters of eye movements? Experimental Brain Research, 238, 101–109.PubMedCrossRef

Proctor, R. W., Marble, J. G., & Vu, K.-P.L. (2000). Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 64, 11–24.PubMedCrossRef

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

Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 446–461.PubMedCrossRef

Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510–532.MathSciNetPubMedCrossRef

Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Decision diffusion model: current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Reed, C. L., Garza, J. P., & Vyas, D. B. (2018). Feeling but not seeing the hand: occluded hand position reduces the hand proximity effect in ERPs. Consciousness and Cognition, 64, 154–163.PubMedCrossRef

Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166–177.PubMed

Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Mechanisms in Perception and Action (pp. 494–519). Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3), 514–523.PubMed

Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Cheesman, J., & Besner, D. (2007). Contingency learning without awareness: evidence for implicit control. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(2), 421–435.PubMedCrossRef

Schuch, S., & Pütz, S. (2021). Mood state and conflict adaptation: an update and a diffusion model analysis. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(1), 322–344.PubMedCrossRef

Servant, M., & Evans, N. J. (2020). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the Flanker Task. Psychology and Aging, 35(6), 831–849.PubMedCrossRef

Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2018). Deconstructing spatial-numerical associations. Cognition, 175, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.022CrossRefPubMed

Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & Van Der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (statistical Methodology), 64(4), 583–639.MathSciNetCrossRef

Suarez, I., Vidal, F., Burle, B., & Casini, L. (2015). A dual-task paradigm to study the interference reduction in the Simon task. Experimental Psychology, 62(2), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000275CrossRefPubMed

Suh, J., & Abrams, R. A. (2015). Reduced object-based perception in the near-hand space. Experimental Brain Research, 233(12), 3403–3412.PubMedCrossRef

Toomarian, E. Y., Gosavi, R. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2019). Implicit and explicit spatial-numerical representations diverge in number-form synesthetes. Consciousness and Cognition, 75, 102806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102806CrossRefPubMed

Treccani, B., Milanese, N., & Umiltà, C. (2010). Influence on Simon and SNARC effects of a nonspatial stimulus–response mapping: between-task logical recoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1239–1254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019239CrossRefPubMed

Turner, B. M., Sederberg, P. B., Brown, S. D., & Steyvers, M. (2013). A method for efficiently sampling from distributions with correlated dimensions. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 368–384.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Van Ravenzwaaij, D., Cassey, P., & Brown, S. D. (2018). A simple introduction to Markov Chain Monte-Carlo sampling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 143–154.CrossRef

Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Voss, J. (2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: an empirical validation. Memory & Cognition, 32(7), 1206–1220.CrossRef

Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002CrossRefPubMed

Wang, X., Du, F., He, X., & Zhang, K. (2014). Enhanced spatial stimulus–response mapping near the hands: the Simon effect is modulated by hand-stimulus proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(6), 2252–2265.PubMed

Wang, X., Du, F., Hopfinger, J. B., & Zhang, K. (2018). Impaired conflict monitoring near the hands: neurophysiological evidence. Biological Psychology, 138, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.08.008CrossRefPubMed

Wang, X., Du, S., Zhang, K., & Du, F. (2021). An auditory hand-proximity effect: the auditory Simon effect is enhanced near the hands. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 853–861.CrossRef

Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 731–751.PubMed

White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2011). Diffusion models of the flanker task: discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cognitive Psychology, 63(4), 210–238.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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(3), 453–464.PubMed

Xia, T., Li, H., & Wang, L. (2016). Implicitly strengthened task-irrelevant stimulus–response associations modulate cognitive control: evidence from an fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 37(2), 756–772.MathSciNetPubMedCrossRef

Xia, X., Guo, M., & Wang, L. (2023). Learning of irrelevant stimulus–response associations modulates cognitive control. NeuroImage, 276, 120206.PubMedCrossRef

Xiang, X., Yan, L., Fu, S., Nan, W. (2022). Processing stage flexibility of the SNARC effect: Task relevance or magnitude relevance? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1022999.

Xiong, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2016). Decreasing auditory Simon effects across reaction time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000117CrossRefPubMed

Yan, L., Yang, G., Nan, W., Liu, X., & Fu, S. (2021). The SNARC effect occurs in the response-selection stage. Acta Psychologica, 215(8), 103292.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Similarities of SNARC, cognitive Simon, and visuomotor Simon effects in terms of response time distributions, hand-stimulus proximity, and temporal dynamics
Auteurs: Lizhu Yan
Yilin Ma
Weibin Yang
Xinrui Xiang
Weizhi Nan
Publicatiedatum: 18-08-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01866-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2024

Planning lane changes using advance visual and haptic information

Perceived spatial presence and body orientation affect the recall of out-of-sight places in an immersive sketching experiment

Diagnosing eyewitness identifications with reaction time‑based Concealed Information Test: the effect of viewpoint congruency between test and encoding

Right-left hand asymmetry in manual tracking: when poorer control is associated with better adaptation and interlimb transfer

Factors influencing passage of time judgment in individuals’ daily lives: evidence from the experience sampling and diary methods

Can you accurately monitor your behaviors while multitasking? The effect of multitasking on metacognition