Spatial compatibility effects (SCEs) are typically observed when participants have to execute spatially defined responses to nonspatial stimulus features (e.g., the color red or green) that randomly appear to the left and the right. Whereas a spatial correspondence of stimulus and response features facilitates response execution, a noncorrespondence impairs task performance. Interestingly, the SCE is drastically reduced when a single participant responds to one stimulus feature (e.g., green) by operating only one response key (individual go/no-go task), whereas a full-blown SCE is observed when the task is distributed between two participants (joint go/no-go task). This joint SCE (a.k.a. the social Simon effect) has previously been explained by action/task co-representation, whereas alternative accounts ascribe joint SCEs to spatial components inherent in joint go/no-go tasks that allow participants to code their responses spatially. Although increasing evidence supports the idea that spatial rather than social aspects are responsible for joint SCEs emerging, it is still unclear to which component(s) the spatial coding refers to: the spatial orientation of response keys, the spatial orientation of responding agents, or both. By varying the spatial orientation of the responding agents (Exp. 1) and of the response keys (Exp. 2), independent of the spatial orientation of the stimuli, in the present study we found joint SCEs only when both the seating and the response key alignment matched the stimulus alignment. These results provide evidence that spatial response coding refers not only to the response key arrangement, but also to the-often neglected-spatial orientation of the responding agents.

A task like "moving a meeting forward" reveals the ambiguity inherent in temporal references. That speakers of U.S. English do not agree on how to solve it is well established: Roughly one half moves the meeting futurewards, the other half pastwards. But the extent to which individual speakers, rather than groups of speakers, consider such phrases as ambiguous has not been scrutinized. Does the split in readings result from a lack of intraindividual consistency or from a lack of interindividual consensus? And how specific is U.S. English in this regard when compared to other closely related Germanic languages? Based on a taxonomy of spatiotemporal frames of reference (FoRs), we conducted two experiments with speakers of Swedish, U.S. English, and German to assess individual preferences for temporal FoRs, intra- and cross-linguistic variability, consistency and long-term stability of these preferences, and possible effects of priming a spatial FoR. The data reveal cross-linguistic differences, both in terms of which temporal FoRs speakers prefer (the absolute FoR in Sweden, the intrinsic FoR in German, and both of these in the US) and in terms of the extent to which these preferences are shared and stable (high consensus and consistency in Sweden and Germany, and low consensus and partial consistency in the US). Overall, no effect of spatial priming was observed; only speakers of U.S. English with a baseline preference for the absolute temporal FoR seemed to be susceptible to spatial priming. Thus, the assumption that temporal references are affected by spatial references is only weakly supported.

Previous studies observed compatibility effects in different interference paradigms such as the Simon and flanker task even when the task was distributed across two co-actors. In both Simon and flanker tasks, performance is improved in compatible trials relative to incompatible trials if one actor works on the task alone as well as if two co-actors share the task. These findings have been taken to indicate that actors automatically co-represent their co-actor's task. However, recent research on the joint Simon and joint flanker effect suggests alternative non-social interpretations. To which degree both joint effects are driven by the same underlying processes is the question of the present study, and it was scrutinized by manipulating the visibility of the co-actor. While the joint Simon effect was not affected by the visibility of the co-actor, the joint flanker effect was reduced when participants did not see their co-actors but knew where the co-actors were seated. These findings provide further evidence for a spatial interpretation of the joint Simon effect. In contrast to recent claims, however, we propose a new explanation of the joint flanker effect that attributes the effect to an impairment in the focusing of spatial attention contingent on the visibility of the co-actor.

People often use spatial vocabulary to describe temporal relations, and this increasingly has motivated attempts to map spatial frames of reference (FoRs) onto time. Recent research suggested that speech communities, which differ in how they conceptualize space, may also differ in how they conceptualize time and, more specifically, that the preferences for spatial FoRs should carry over to the domain of time. Here, we scrutinize this assumption (a) by reviewing data from recent studies on temporal references, (b) by comparing data we had collected in previous studies on preferences for spatial and temporal FoRs in four languages, (c) by analyzing new data from dynamic spatial tasks that resemble the temporal tasks more closely, and (d) by assessing the co-variation of individual preferences of English speakers across space and time. While the first set of data paints a mixed picture, the latter three do not support the assumption of a close link between referencing preferences across domains. We explore possible reasons for this lack of consistency and discuss implications for research on temporal references.

Does the speed of single-item recognition errors predict performance in subsequent two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) trials that include an item with a previous error response? Starns, Dubé, and Frelinger (2018) found effects of this kind in two experiments and accounted for them in terms of a continuous memory-strength signal guiding recognition decisions. However, the effects of error speed might just as well only reflect an artefact due to an error-correction strategy that uses response latency as a heuristic cue to guide 2AFC responses, elicited through confounding factors in their experimental design such as error-correction instructions as well as feedback. Using two conditions, a replication condition, replicating the procedure from Starns et al., and an extension condition (each n = 130), controlling for the named shortcomings, we replicated the error speed effect. In both conditions, speed of errors in a single-item recognition task were predictive of subsequent 2AFC performance including the respective error item. To be more precise, fast errors were associated with decreased 2AFC performance. As there was no interaction with the factor condition, the results support the idea that speed of single-item recognition responses reflects the amount of memory information underlying the respective response rather than being used for a simple error-correction strategy to improve 2AFC performance.