Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the Social Simon paradigm

Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In previous research, hands-crossed versions of a social variant of the Simon task were used to distinguish between effector-based coding of the Social Simon effect (SSE, analogously to the standard Simon effect) or body-based coding, in which the coding of stimulus location and seating position of the participants functions as a spatial reference frame. In the present study, the analysis of the SSE with respect to previous task requirements (i.e., Simon compatibility in N−1) in a hands-crossed variant of the Social Simon task shows that neither type of coding provides a sole explanation of the pattern of a SSE. Instead, the data pattern seems to be explained more parsimoniously by the assumption of a strengthening of low level feature integration mechanisms in a social setting, taking repetitions and alternations of both agents’ stimulus and response features into account.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In order to better compare our findings with those of the Welsh (2009) study, we ran an additional analysis on the present experimental data with crossed hands including the dataset of a previous study in which another group of participants performed exactly the same task with hands uncrossed (Liepelt et al., 2011). This analysis included the factors Compatibility (Compatible vs. Incompatible), Preceding Compatibility on trial (N−1), and Group (Crossed vs. Uncrossed). The analysis was performed separately for the Individual go/nogo task and the Joint go/nogo task. For the Individual go/nogo task this analysis showed no overall SSE effect, but a sequential modulation across both groups (Crossed, Uncrossed), F(1, 46) = 50.96, MSe = 132.71, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.53. The sequential modulation did not differ between crossed- and uncrossed-effector conditions for the Individual go/nogo tasks, F(1, 46) < 1, partial η2 = 0.01. For the Joint go/nogo tasks, however, we found a significant overall SSE across both groups (Crossed, Uncrossed), F(1, 46) = 7.26, MSe = 156.07, p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.14, which was, however, entirely driven by the 9 ms Simon effect in the uncrossed-effector condition (compared to the 0 ms in the hands-crossed condition). This enlargement of the SSE in the uncrossed-effector condition compared to the crossed-effector condition was also reliable, F(1, 46) = 5.27, MSe = 156.07, p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.10. Further, we found a sequential modulation across both groups (Crossed, Uncrossed) for the Joint go/nogo tasks, F(1, 46) = 174.44, MSe = 100.66, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.79, which did not differ between crossed- and uncrossed-effector conditions, F(1, 46) < 1, partial η2 = 0.002.

References

  • Adamson, L., Bakeman, R., & Dekner, D. (2004). The development of symbol infused joint engagement. Child Development, 75, 1171–1187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539–564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44, 124–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Charman, T., Swettenham, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Baird, G., Cox, A., & Drew, A. (2001). Testing joint attention, imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language and theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 15, 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 731–750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How social is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2008). Context-sensitive adjustments of cognitive control: Conflict-adaptation effects are modulated by processing demands of the ongoing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 712–718.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., Plessow, F., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2010). Trial-to-trial modulations of the Simon effect in conditions of attentional limitations: Evidence from dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1576–1594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, H. L., Happé, F., Brunswick, N., Fletcher, P. C., Frith, U., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Reading the mind in cartoons and stories: An fMRI study of ‘theory of mind’ in verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 493–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations. Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., & Brass, M. (2010a). Top-down modulation of motor priming by belief about animacy. Experimental Psychology, 57, 221–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., & Brass, M. (2010b). Automatic imitation of physically impossible movements. Social Cognition, 28, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Brass, M. (2010). When do we simulate non-human agents? Dissociating communicative and non-communicative actions. Cognition, 115, 426–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Brass, M. (2008a). What is matched in direct matching? Intention attribution modulates motor priming effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 578–591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Brass, M. (2008b). How do we infer others’ goals from nonstereotypic actions? The outcome of context-sensitive inferential processing in right inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortex. NeuroImage, 43, 784–792.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research, 75, 366–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schilbach, L., Wohlschlaeger, A. M., Newen, A., Krämer, N. C., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R., et al. (2006). Being with virtual others: Neural correlates of social interaction. Neuropsychologia, 44, 718–730.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint actions: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: corepresenting stimulus–response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor, T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: an integrated perspective. Advances in Psychology (Vol. 65, pp. 31–86) Amsterdam: North-Holland.

  • Simon, J. R., Hinrichs, J. V., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Auditory S–R compatibility: reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, A., Brandstädter, S., Liepelt, R., Birngruber, T., Giese, M., Mechsner, F., et al. (2011). Motor execution affects action prediction. Brain and Cognition, 76, 26–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. C., & Brass, M. (2007). Does the human motor system simulate Pinocchio’s actions? Co-acting with a human hand versus a wooden hand in a dyadic interaction. Psychological Science, 18, 1058–1062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Jing, J. T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2006). The common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlainic, E., Liepelt, R., Colzato, L. S., Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (2010). The virtual co-actor: the Social Simon effect does not rely on online feedback from the other. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, T. N. (2009). When 1 + 1 = 1: the unification of independent actors revealed through joint Simon effects persist in crossed and uncrossed effector conditions. Human Movement Science, 28, 726–737.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wenke, D., Holländer, A., Atmaca, S., Liepelt, R., Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2011). What is shared in joint action? The contents of co-representation. The Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 147–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2007). Response coding in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 71, 401–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winkel, J., Wijnen, J. G., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Groen, I., Derrfuss, J., Danielmeier, C., et al. (2009). Your conflict matters to me! Behavioral and neural manifestations of control adjustments after self-experienced and observed decision-conflict. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present research was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation awarded to R.L. (DFG LI 2115/1-1). The authors wish to thank Julia Haupt for help with data acquisition, Marco Steinhauser and Timothy N. Welsh for their helpful comments on a previous version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roman Liepelt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liepelt, R., Wenke, D. & Fischer, R. Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the Social Simon paradigm. Psychological Research 77, 240–248 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0425-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0425-0

Keywords

Navigation