Simon effects might partly reflect stimulus-triggered response activation. According to the response-discrimination hypothesis, however, stimulus-triggered response activation shows up in Simon effects only when stimulus locations match the top-down selected spatial codes used to discriminate between alternative responses. Five experiments support this hypothesis. In Experiment 1, spatial codes of each response differed by horizontal and vertical axis position, yet one axis discriminated between alternative responses, whereas the other did not. Simon effects resulted for targets on discriminating axes only. In Experiment 2, both spatial axes discriminated between responses, and targets on both axes produced Simon effects. In Experiment 3, Simon effects resulted for a spatial choice-reaction task but not for a go/no-go task. Even in the go/no-go task, a Simon effect was restored when a two-choice reaction task preceded the go/no-go task (Experiment 4) or when participants initiated trials with responses spatially discriminated from the go response (Experiment 5).

No abstract

The present study investigates sequential modulations of the Simon effect. The Simon effect involves faster responses to spatially corresponding than to noncorresponding stimuli, even when stimulus position is irrelevant. Recently, the Simon effect has been shown to decrease or to disappear after noncorresponding predecessor trials. Possible explanations for these sequential modulations include (a) the gating of position-based response activation (conflict monitoring), (b) repetition or alternation effects, and (c) the interaction between feature integration (binding) processes and stimulus-response (S-R) correspondence. Three experiments tested different predictions of these models by comparing Simon effects after neutral trials with those after corresponding and noncorresponding trials, respectively, and by varying the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between and within experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed large Simon effects after corresponding trials, intermediate Simon effects after neutral trials, and small (or no) Simon effects after noncorresponding trials. Moreover, some systematic effects of S-R repetitions and S-R alternations were observed. Finally, the sequential modulations were maximal at short SOAs and decreased with increasing SOA, but still occurred at an SOA of 6 seconds. The results seem to exclude repetition or alternation effects as the main cause of sequential modulations of the Simon effect, but both conflict monitoring and binding may contribute to these effects.

The aftereffects of error and conflict (i.e., stimulus or response incongruency) have been extensively studied in the cognitive control literature. Each has been characterized by its own behavioral signature on the following trial. Conflict leads to a reduced congruency effect (Gratton effect), whereas an error leads to increased response time (post-error slowing). The reason for this dissociation has remained unclear. Here, we show that post-conflict slowing is not typically observed because it is masked by the processing of the irrelevant stimulus dimension. We demonstrate that post-conflict slowing does occur when tested in pure trials where helpful or detrimental impacts from irrelevant stimulus dimensions are removed (i.e., univalent stimuli).

According to a theory of magnitude (ATOM, Walsh, 2003, the cognitive representations of quantity, time, and space share a general magnitude code. Interestingly though, research has largely ignored the relationship between physical (stimulus) size and spatial (response) location. We conducted two experiments investigating compatibility effects between physical stimulus size and left-right responses. In both experiments, right-handed participants responded to a small or a large square stimulus by pressing a left or a right key. In Experiment 1, size was the relevant stimulus feature and we varied the S-R mapping within participants. Results revealed a strong compatibility effect: Performance was better with the compatible mapping (small-left and large-right) than with the incompatible mapping (large-left and small-right). In Experiment 2, participants responded to stimulus color, which varied independently of stimulus size, by pressing a left or right key. Results showed a congruency effect that mirrored the compatibility effect of Experiment 1. The results of our experiments suggest a strong relationship between the cognitive representation of physical (stimulus) size and response location in right-handers. The findings support the notion of a general magnitude code, as proposed in ATOM.

Three experiments investigated transfer of list-wide proportion congruent (LWPC) effects from a set of congruent and incongruent items with different frequency (inducer task) to a set of congruent and incongruent items with equal frequency (diagnostic task). Experiments 1 and 2 mixed items from horizontal and vertical Simon tasks. Tasks always involved different stimuli that varied on the same dimension (colour) in Experiment 1 and on different dimensions (colour, shape) in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 mixed trials from a manual Simon task with trials from a vocal Stroop task, with colour being the relevant stimulus in both tasks. There were two major results. First, we observed transfer of LWPC effects in Experiments 1 and 3, when tasks shared the relevant dimension, but not in Experiment 2. Second, sequential modulations of congruency effects transferred in Experiment 1 only. Hence, the different transfer patterns suggest that LWPC effects and sequential modulations arise from different mechanisms. Moreover, the observation of transfer supports an account of LWPC effects in terms of list-wide cognitive control, while being at odds with accounts in terms of stimulus-response (contingency) learning and itemspecific control.

Participants are worse at identifying spatial symbols (arrowheads) while performing spatially compatible manual key presses. The present experiments investigated the generality of this "blindness effect" to response-compatible stimuli. In Experiment 1 a left key press deteriorated the identification of left-pointing arrows, and a right key press deteriorated the perception of right-pointing arrows, independent of the hands used to press the key. Thus the blindness effect is based on codes of the distal response location rather than on the body-intrinsic anatomical connection of the hands. Experiment 2 extended the blindness effect to verbal responses and written position words (left, right, up, down). Vocalizing a position word blinded to directly compatible position words (e.g., left-left), but not to orthogonally compatible position words (e.g., left-down). This result suggests that the use of identical stimulus-response codes, and not the use of saliency-matching but distinct codes, suffices to produce blindness effects. Finally, Experiment 3 extended the blindness phenomenon beyond the spatial domain by demonstrating blindness between saying color words and perceiving color patches. Altogether, the experiments revealed action-induced blindness to be a phenomenon of broad empirical validity occurring whenever action and perception afford simultaneous access to the same conceptual codes.

The Stroop (1935) effect is the inability to ignore a color word when the task is to report the ink color of that word (i.e., to say "green" to the word RED in green ink). The present study investigated whether object-based processing contributes to the Stroop effect. According to this view, observers are unable to ignore irrelevant features of an attended object (Kahneman & Henik, 1981). In three experiments, participants had to name the color of one of two superimposed rectangles and to ignore words that appeared in the relevant object, in the irrelevant object, or in the background. The words were congruent, neutral, or incongruent with respect to the correct color response. Words in the irrelevant object and in the background produced significant Stroop effects, consistent with earlier findings. Importantly, however, words in the relevant object produced larger Stroop effects than did the other conditions, suggesting amplified processing of all the features of an attended object. Thus, object-based processing can modulate the Stroop effect.