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

Abstract

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.

The Carry-Over Effect of Competition in Task-Sharing: Evidence from the Joint Simon Task

“…There are indeed recent findings suggesting that the joint Simon effect might be due to spatial factors (e.g., [11], [12], [44]). For instance, Dolk et al [11] recently suggested that the joint Simon effect might arise because participants code their own actions with respect to salient action events in order to discriminate between them.…”

On predicting others’ words: Electrophysiological evidence of prediction in speech production

“…The task co-representation account (Atmaca, Sebanz, & Knoblich, 2011;Sebanz, Knoblich, & Prinz, 2005) claims that representations of another's task specify not only when the other needs to act, but also what she needs to be doing (e.g., green: task-partner needs to press right key). Despite several attempts, previous studies have largely failed to find conclusive evidence for task co-representation since the joint compatibility effect described above can be explained as a result of representing when it is the co-actor's turn (Philipp & Prinz, 2010;Wenke et al, 2011) or even just being sensitive to her spatial location (Dittrich, Dolk, Rothe-Wulf, Klauer, & Prinz, 2013;Dolk et al, 2011).…”

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

“…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.…”

“…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).…”