Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects

Dittrich, Kerstin; Rothe, Annelie; Klauer, Karl Christoph

doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0304-1

Cited by 61 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(88 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to earlier, decidedly social interpretations of the JSE (Sebanz et al, 2003), more recent findings suggest that the effect reflects the spatial coding of the participant's own action with respect to any other, sufficiently salient event (Dittrich, Rothe, & Klauer, 2012;Dolk et al, 2013). Obviously, the presence of another person is particularly salient and, thus, likely to induce spatial response coding and a reliable JSE, but there is no reason to exclude the possibility that nonsocial events, like a rhythm-producing metronome, can also produce a JSE (Dolk et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

Increasing self–other integration through divergent thinking

Colzato

Wildenberg

2013

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing evidence suggests that people may cognitively represent themselves and others just like any other, nonsocial event. Here, we provide evidence that the degree of self-other integration (as reflected by the joint Simon effect; JSE) is systematically affected by the control characteristics of temporally overlapping but unrelated and nonsocial creativity tasks. In particular, the JSE was found to be larger in the context of a divergent-thinking task (alternate uses task) than in the context of a convergent-thinking task (remote association task). This suggests that self-other integration and action corepresentation are controlled by domain-general cognitivecontrol parameters that regulate the integrativeness (strong vs. weak top-down control and a resulting narrow vs. broad attentional focus) of information processing irrespective of its social implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

Increasing self–other integration through divergent thinking

Colzato

Wildenberg

2013

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas the action co-representation account speaks to the ability to integrate one's own and others' behaviors, the social attribute that drives this account has been challenged (Dittrich, Dolk, Rothe-Wulf, Klauer, & Prinz, 2013;Dittrich, Rothe, & Klauer, 2012;Dolk et al, 2011;Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, & Liepelt, 2013a;Guagnano, Rusconia, & Umiltá, 2010;Hommel, Colzato, & van den Wildenberg, 2009;Liepelt, 2014). Dolk et al (2013a), for instance, demonstrated that a salient, nonsocial feature in the visual field is sufficient to elicit a correspondence effect even without a co-actor.…”

Section: Action Co-representation Vs Referential Codingmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Dolk et al concluded that active participation of a co-actor is not necessary for the go-nogo correspondence effect to occur. Rather, any external event that is salient and provides a spatial reference frame relative to which the participant codes her or his own response as left or right is sufficient to elicit a correspondence effect (the referential coding account; see also Dittrich et al, 2012Dittrich et al, , 2013Dolk, Liepelt, Prinz, & Fiehler, 2013b;Guagnano et al, 2010;Liepelt, 2014).…”

Section: Action Co-representation Vs Referential Codingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus–response correspondence in go–nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?

Lien

Pedersen

Proctor

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2-choice tasks, responses are faster when stimulus location corresponds to response location, even when stimulus location is irrelevant. Dolk et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 39:1248-1260, 2013a) found this stimulus-response correspondence effect with a single response location in a go-nogo task when an irrelevant Japanese waving cat was present. They argued that salient objects trigger spatial coding of the response relative to that object. We examined this claim using both behavioral and lateralized readiness potential (LRP) measures. In Experiment 1 participants determined the pitch of a left- or right-positioned tone, whereas in Experiment 2 they determined the color of a dot within a centrally located hand pointing left, right, or straight ahead. In both experiments, participants performed a go-nogo task with the right-index finger and a 2-choice task with both index fingers, with a left-positioned Japanese waving cat present or absent. For the go-nogo task, the cat induced a correspondence effect on response times (RT) to the tones (Experiment 1) but not the visual stimuli (Experiment 2). For the 2-choice task, a correspondence effect was evident in all conditions in both experiments. Cat's presence/absence did not significantly modulate the effect for right and left responses, although there was a trend toward increased RT and LRP for right responses in Experiment 1. The results imply that a salient, irrelevant object could provide a reference frame for response coding when attention is available to process it, as is likely in an auditory task (Experiment 1) but not a visual task (Experiment 2).

show abstract

“…Recently, however, an increasing number of studies have challenged the idea of action/task co-representation by demonstrating that joint SCEs can be elicited via social and nonsocial events (e.g., by another agent or inanimate object; Dittrich, Rothe, & Klauer, 2012;Dolk, Hommel, Colzato, Schütz-Bosbach, Prinz, & Liepelt, 2011;Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, & Liepelt, 2013;Dolk, Liepelt, Prinz, & Fiehler, 2013;Guagnano, Rusconi, & Umiltà, 2010). To simplify matters, we will term this approach the spatial-coding account in the remainder of this article, although the ideas of spatial coding formulated in previous works have focused on different aspects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect

Dittrich

Dolk

Rothe-Wulf

et al. 2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects

Cited by 61 publications

References 34 publications

Increasing self–other integration through divergent thinking

Increasing self–other integration through divergent thinking

Stimulus–response correspondence in go–nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?

Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About