Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

25-11-2019 | Original Article

The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon effect: remapping of working space by tool use

Auteurs: Cristina Iani, Francesca Ciardo, Simone Panajoli, Luisa Lugli, Sandro Rubichi

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2021

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

Abstract

The Simon effect, that is the advantage of the spatial correspondence between stimulus and response locations when stimulus location is task irrelevant, occurs even when the task is performed by two participants, each performing a go/no-go task. This effect, known as the joint Simon effect, does not emerge when participants sit outside each other’s peripersonal space, thus suggesting that the presence of an active confederate in peripersonal space might provide a reference for response coding. The present study investigated whether this finding is due to the distance separating the participants and/or to the distance separating each participant and the other agent’s response. In two experiments, pairs of participants performed a social detection task sitting outside each other’s arm reach, with response keys located close to the participants or outside arm reach. When the response key was located outside the participant’s arm reach, he/she could reach it by means of a tool. In Experiment 1, by means of a tool, participants could reach their response key only, while in Experiment 2, they could reach also their co-agent’s response key. The joint Simon effect did not emerge when participants could not reach the co-actor’s response, while it emerged when they could potentially reach the other participant’s response using the tool, but only when turn taking was required. These results may be taken as evidence that the possibility to reach and act upon the co-actor’s response key may be at the bases of compatibility effects observed in joint action contexts requiring complementary responses.
Voetnoten
1
We calculated a priori the sample size required to achieve 95% power to detect a significant interaction between session, trial type and correspondence with the G*power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) software. With an effect size f = 0.25, the power calculation yielded a recommended sample size of at least 23 participants.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Ambrosini, E., Sinigaglia, C., & Costantini, M. (2012). Tie my hands, tie my eyes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 263–266.PubMed Ambrosini, E., Sinigaglia, C., & Costantini, M. (2012). Tie my hands, tie my eyes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 263–266.PubMed
go back to reference Bourgeois, J., & Coello, Y. (2012). Effect of visuomotor calibration and uncertainty on the perception of peripersonal space. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74(6), 1268–1283.CrossRef Bourgeois, J., & Coello, Y. (2012). Effect of visuomotor calibration and uncertainty on the perception of peripersonal space. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74(6), 1268–1283.CrossRef
go back to reference Bourgeois, J., Farnè, A., & Coello, Y. (2014). Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. Acta Psychologica, 148, 91–95.CrossRef Bourgeois, J., Farnè, A., & Coello, Y. (2014). Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. Acta Psychologica, 148, 91–95.CrossRef
go back to reference Dittrich, K., Puffe, L., & Klauer, K. C. (2017b). You are right! Spatial instructions increase social Simon effects. Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 406–412.CrossRef Dittrich, K., Puffe, L., & Klauer, K. C. (2017b). You are right! Spatial instructions increase social Simon effects. Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 406–412.CrossRef
go back to reference Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.CrossRef Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.CrossRef
go back to reference Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). How the body in action shapes the self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18, 117–143. Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). How the body in action shapes the self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18, 117–143.
go back to reference Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114(3), 348–355.CrossRef Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114(3), 348–355.CrossRef
go back to reference Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.CrossRef Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.CrossRef
go back to reference Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.CrossRef Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.CrossRef
go back to reference Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.CrossRef Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.CrossRef
go back to reference 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, 849–878.CrossRef 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, 849–878.CrossRef
go back to reference Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 188–196.CrossRef Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 188–196.CrossRef
go back to reference Iani, C., Rubichi, R., Gherri, E., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). Co-occurrence of sequential and practice effects in the Simon task: Evidence for two independent mechanisms affecting response selection. Memory & Cognition, 37, 358–367.CrossRef Iani, C., Rubichi, R., Gherri, E., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). Co-occurrence of sequential and practice effects in the Simon task: Evidence for two independent mechanisms affecting response selection. Memory & Cognition, 37, 358–367.CrossRef
go back to reference Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRef Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRef
go back to reference Martel, M., Cardinali, L., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2016). Tool-use: An open window into body representation and its plasticity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(1–2), 82–101.CrossRef Martel, M., Cardinali, L., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2016). Tool-use: An open window into body representation and its plasticity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(1–2), 82–101.CrossRef
go back to reference Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144–150.CrossRef Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144–150.CrossRef
go back to reference Patanè, I., Farnè, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2017). Cooperative tool-use reveals peripersonal and interpersonal spaces are dissociable. Cognition, 166, 13–22.CrossRef Patanè, I., Farnè, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2017). Cooperative tool-use reveals peripersonal and interpersonal spaces are dissociable. Cognition, 166, 13–22.CrossRef
go back to reference Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRef Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRef
go back to reference 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(1), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038548.CrossRefPubMed 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(1), 186–195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0038548.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon effect: remapping of working space by tool use
Auteurs
Cristina Iani
Francesca Ciardo
Simone Panajoli
Luisa Lugli
Sandro Rubichi
Publicatiedatum
25-11-2019
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01271-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2021

Psychological Research 2/2021 Naar de uitgave