Top

Gepubliceerd in:

07-03-2024 | Research

The Simon effect under reversed visual feedback

Auteurs: Hamza Sabek, Loïc P. Heurley, Ronan Guerineau, Vincent Dru

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2024

Abstract

Our aim was to study the processes involved in the spatial coding of the body during actions producing multiple simultaneous effects. We specifically aimed to challenge the intentional-based account, which proposes that the effects used to code responses are those deemed relevant to the agent's goal. Accordingly, we used a Simon paradigm (widely recognized as a suitable method to investigate the spatial coding of responses) combined with a setup inducing a multimodal discrepancy between visual and tactile/proprioceptive effects (known to be crucial for body schema construction and action control). To be more precise, the setup allowed to horizontally reverse the visual effects of the hands compared to the tactile/proprioceptive effects (e.g., the right hand was seen as being on the left). In Experiment 1, the visual effects were not reversed. However, in Experiment 2, the visual effects were reversed, and the task emphasized the relevance of these effects to the participants. In Experiment 3, the visual effects were also reversed, but the task emphasized the relevance of tactile/proprioceptive effects. A Simon effect, based on the location of the tactile/proprioceptive effects, was observed in Experiments 1 and 3. However, in Experiment 2, the Simon effect was partially driven by the location of the visual effects. These findings collectively support that the agent's intention plays a prominent role in the representation of their body during action. This work also suggests a promising avenue for research in linking action and body representations.

vorige artikel Conflicts between priming and episodic retrieval: a question of fluency?

volgende artikel A differential impact of action–effect temporal contiguity on different measures of response inhibition in the Go\No-Go and Stop-signal paradigms

It is noteworthy that this view is not strictly opposed to the explanation of Ernst and Bank (2002). Indeed, it is possible that, considering the goal of the agent, the visual modality brings the most reliable information and therefore weighs more heavily in the coding, thus explaining both results on motor control and body ownership.

In this experiment, another group of participants received additional visual feedback, but we have not further detailed the results of this group because they did not provide any additional information considering the rationale developed here.

Sutter and Ladwig (2012) also transformed the visual feedback along the vertical axis. However, we did not discuss further their results on this transformation as we solely used a transformation along the horizontal axis in our experiment.

It is critical to note that Sutter and Ladwig (2012) did not report the specific response times associated with the transformation on the horizontal axis. More precisely, reported data were average RTs for both transformations (i.e., horizontal and vertical axis). Therefore, we recalculated each value based on available data. In addition, as the statistical analyses reported also referred to the mean RTs by merging the transformations on the horizontal and vertical axis, we were unable to determine whether the differences for the horizontal axis transformations were statistically significant or not.

However, because Sutter and Ladwig (2012) reported only average data for the horizontal and vertical axis transformations, we cannot be sure that this conclusion is valuable for the horizontal axis transformation.

We did not report analysis on movement times as various experiments support that the Simon effect is a response-selection phenomenon (Rubichi & Pellicano, 2004; Rubichi et al., 2000; Wallace, 1971) mainly captured by initiation times rather than by movement times. However, movement times were available on OSF.

It is noteworthy that in studies investigating the rubber-hand illusion, researchers typically exclude non-responders (e.g., Pfister et al., 2021). If we apply the same approach here and exclude participants who exhibited a positive Simon effect (i.e., 8 participants), the mean Simon effect for the remaining sample (i.e., 22 participants) was -18 ms (s = 17 ms). This effect size was statistically different from zero, t(22) = -4.970, p < 0.001.

We conducted a t-test with the experiment (Experiment 1: non-reversed group vs Experiment 2: visual-reversed group vs Experiment 3: non-reversed group) as a between-subject independent variable. This analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the Global ITs mean for Experiment 2 (m = 519 ms; s = 52) compared to Experiment 1 (m = 478 ms; s = 54), t(58) = 2,98, p = 0,004.

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365CrossRefPubMed

Blanke, O. (2012). Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(8), 556–571. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3292CrossRefPubMed

Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’touch that eyes see. Nature, 391(6669), 756–756. https://doi.org/10.1038/35784CrossRefPubMed

Buhlmann, I., Umilta, C., & Wascher, E. (2007). Response coding and visuomotor transformation in the Simon task: The role of action goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1269CrossRefPubMed

Chancel, M., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2020). Which hand is mine? Discriminating body ownership perception in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(8), 4058–4083. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02107-xCrossRef

Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477CrossRefPubMed

Clouter, A., Wilson, R., Allen, S., Klein, R. M., & Eskes, G. A. (2015). The influence of verbal and spatial working memory load on the time course of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(2), 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038715CrossRefPubMed

Debats, N. B., & Heuer, H. (2018). Sensory integration of movements and their visual effects is not enhanced by spatial proximity. Journal of Vision, 18(11), 15–15. https://doi.org/10.1167/18.11.15CrossRefPubMed

Debats, N. B., Ernst, M. O., & Heuer, H. (2017). Perceptual attraction in tool use: Evidence for a reliability-based weighting mechanism. Journal of Neurophysiology, 117(4), 1569–1580. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00724.2016CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Deconinck, F. J., Smorenburg, A. R., Benham, A., Ledebt, A., Feltham, M. G., & Savelsbergh, G. J. (2015). Reflections on mirror therapy: A systematic review of the effect of mirror visual feedback on the brain. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 29(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968314546134CrossRefPubMed

Ehrsson, H.H., 2020. Multisensory processes in body ownership. Multisensory Perception. Elsevier, pp. 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812492-5.00008-5

Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229CrossRefPubMed

Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415(6870), 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/415429aCrossRefPubMed

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(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146CrossRefPubMed

Fleury, L., Prablanc, C., & Priot, A. E. (2019). Do prism and other adaptation paradigms really measure the same processes? Cortex, 119, 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.07.012CrossRefPubMed

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787CrossRefPubMed

Grosjean, M., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2002). Post-response stimulation and the Simon effect: Further evidence of action-effect integration. Visual Cognition, 9(4–5), 528–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280143000566CrossRef

Guerineau, R., Heurley, L. P., Sabek, H., Brouillet, D., & Dru, V. (2023). The verbal instruction related to action effects can influence the potentiation effect of grasping behaviors. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04995-2CrossRef

Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: A study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1983.10735303CrossRefPubMed

Guterstam, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2012). Disowning one’s seen real body during an out-of-body illusion. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2), 1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.01.018CrossRefPubMed

Heuer, H., Seegelke, C., & Wühr, P. (2023). Staggered Onsets of Processing Relevant and Irrelevant Stimulus Features Produce Different Dynamics of Congruency Effects. Journal of Cognition, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Heurley, L. P., Ferrier, L. P., Coutté, A., & Thébault, G. (2023). Intentional spatial coding of responses under multiple action effect situations. Frontiers in Psychology., 14, 1164500. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1164500CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Holmes, N. P., & Spence, C. (2005). Multisensory integration: Space, time and superadditivity. Current Biology, 15(18), R762–R764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.058CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 55(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419687CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 59(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00425832CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2019). Theory of Event Coding (TEC) V2. 0: Representing and controlling perception and action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 2139–2154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01779-4CrossRef

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(5), 849–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103CrossRefPubMed

Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2012). Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: A dissociation of ownership and agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 40. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387CrossRefPubMed

Kunde, W., Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000143CrossRef

Kunde, W., Müsseler, J., & Heuer, H. (2007). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors, 49(4), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X215CrossRefPubMed

Liesner, M., & Kunde, W. (2020). Suppression of mutually incompatible proprioceptive and visual action effects in tool use. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242327CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liesner, M., & Kunde, W. (2021). Environment-related and body-related components of the minimal self. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712559CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liesner, M., Kirsch, W., Pfister, R., & Kunde, W. (2020). Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 2531–2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02013-2CrossRef

Ma, K., & Hommel, B. (2015). The role of agency for perceived ownership in the virtual hand illusion. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.07.008CrossRefPubMed

McIntosh, R. D., Brown, B. M., & Young, L. (2019). Meta-analysis of the visuospatial aftereffects of prism adaptation, with two novel experiments. Cortex, 111, 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.11.013CrossRefPubMed

Medina, J., Khurana, P., & Coslett, H. B. (2015). The influence of embodiment on multisensory integration using the mirror box illusion. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.08.011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0435-yCrossRefPubMed

Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614542786CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R. (2019). Effect-based action control with body-related effects: Implications for empirical approaches to ideomotor action control. Psychological Review, 126(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000140CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Klaffehn, A. L., Kalckert, A., Kunde, W., & Dignath, D. (2021). How to lose a hand: Sensory updating drives disembodiment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 827–833. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01854-0CrossRef

Proctor, R. W., Miles, J. D., & Baroni, G. (2011). Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 242–266. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0053-5CrossRef

Ramachandran, V. S., & Altschuler, E. L. (2009). The use of visual feedback, in particular mirror visual feedback, in restoring brain function. Brain, 132(7), 1693–1710. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp135CrossRefPubMed

Ramachandran, V. S., & Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (1996). Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences, 263(1369), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1996.0058CrossRef

Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.446CrossRefPubMed

Rubichi, S., & Pellicano, A. (2004). Does the Simon effect affect movement execution? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(6), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000367CrossRef

Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Umiltà, C., & Zorzi, M. (2000). Response strategies and the Simon effect. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 63, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00008171CrossRefPubMed

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Psychology Software Tools Inc.

Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 943. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020541CrossRefPubMed

Sutter, C., & Ladwig, S. (2012). Mirrored visual feedback limits distal effect anticipation. Experimental Brain Research, 218, 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3018-7CrossRefPubMed

Thébault, G., Michalland, A. H., Derozier, V., Chabrier, S., & Brouillet, D. (2018). When the vibrations allow for anticipating the force to be produced: An extend to Pfister et al. (2014). Experimental Brain Research, 236, 1219–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5190-xCrossRefPubMed

Veale, J. F. (2014). Edinburgh handedness inventory—short form: A revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality, 19(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2013.783045CrossRefPubMed

Vilares, I., & Kording, K. (2011). Bayesian models: The structure of the world, uncertainty, behavior, and the brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05965.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wallace, R. J. (1971). SR compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(3), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030892CrossRefPubMed

Wang, D. Y. D., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2003). The Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222890309602139CrossRefPubMed

Wang, D. Y. D., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2007). Coding controlled and triggered cursor movements as action effects: Influences on the auditory Simon effect for wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(3), 657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.657CrossRefPubMed

Wascher, E., Schatz, U., & Kuder, T. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.731CrossRefPubMed

Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.638CrossRefPubMed

Wühr, P., & Biebl, R. (2011). The role of working memory in spatial S-R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 442–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020563CrossRefPubMed

Zmigrod, S., & Hommel, B. (2013). Feature integration across multimodal perception and action: A review. Multisensory Research, 26(1–2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-00002390CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The Simon effect under reversed visual feedback
Auteurs: Hamza Sabek
Loïc P. Heurley
Ronan Guerineau
Vincent Dru
Publicatiedatum: 07-03-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01936-x

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2024

The role of motor inhibition in implicit negation processing: two Go/No-Go behavioral studies

Open Access
Research

Error modulates categorization of subsecond durations in multitasking contexts

Research

How does error correction occur during lexical learning?

Research

Uncertainty salience reduces the accessibility of episodic future thoughts

Research

Give your ideas a hand: the role of iconic hand gestures in enhancing divergent creative thinking

Open Access
Research

Collaborative encoding with a new categorization task: a contribution to collaborative memory research

Open Access
Research