Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue.

Simon, Jessica; Small, Arnold M.

doi:10.1037/h0028034

Cited by 394 publications

(356 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

339

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, one could argue that the analysis misses the fact that, in the spatial task-switching paradigm, this variable may reflect a Simon-like effect (Simon & Small, 1969). Specifically, the classic Simon effect refers to the fact that, in a nonspatial task, the compatibility of the response position with the irrelevant spatial position of the target stimulus affects performance, showing faster response for spatially compatible targets.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An example of a task error in this paradigm (see Figure 1) is executing the right-left task instead of the required updown task. Note that the emphasis is not on long-term habits, as it is in the Stroop effect (Stroop, 1935) and the Simon effect (Simon & Small, 1969), for example, but on recently primed tendencies (see especially Hommel, 2000;Marble & Proctor, 2000).…”

Section: Goals and Empirical Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cuing task-switching paradigm

Meiran

Daichman

2005

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advance preparation reduces RT task-switching cost, which is thought to be evidence of preparatory control in the cuing task-switching paradigm. In the present study, we emphasize errors in relation to response speed. In two experiments, we show that (1) task switching increased the rate at which the currently irrelevant task was erroneously executed ("task errors") and (2) advance task preparation reduced the task error rate to that seen in nonswitch trials. The implications of the results to the hypothesis concerning task-specific preparation are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Goals and Empirical Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cuing task-switching paradigm

Meiran

Daichman

2005

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This latter effect was first detected by Simon and Small (1969), who had participants respond with a left or right key-press to the pitch of a tone presented to the left or right ear. Although only tone pitch was relevant, responses were faster when the stimulus and response locations corresponded than when they did not.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Exploring handedness asymmetries in the Simon effect

Seibold

Chen

Proctor

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatially corresponding stimulus-response pairings usually produce shorter reaction times (RTs) than do noncorresponding pairings, even when the spatial dimension of the stimulus is irrelevant to the task. This BSimon effect^for visual stimuli and manual responses is often larger for the stimulus location on the side to which the person's dominant hand is operating. The present study aimed at replicating and examining the nature of this asymmetry. To determine whether the Simon effect asymmetry is a function of the hand distinction or of conceptual spatial codes, performance with left and right manual key-presses was compared to that with vocal responses Bleft^and Bright.^Whether the asymmetric Simon effect pattern is restricted to spatial stimuli was tested by comparing effects obtained with left and right located squares to those found with the centered words Left and Right. The asymmetry was only replicated for the spatial stimulusmanual response Simon task, for which a second experiment showed similar results when the hands and response box were not visible during task performance. The analysis revealed a general dominant-hand RT advantage that similarly adds to both corresponding and non-corresponding trials and is rather independent from the Simon effect. This advantage yields an apparent asymmetry when the data are analyzed as a function of correspondence for each stimulus location because the corresponding and non-corresponding RTs that are compared come from different hands.

show abstract

“…The external coordinate frame corresponds to the consolidated goal representation found in well-learned tasks. A second, more concrete representation determines the effector-specific motor response corresponding to the internal coordinate frame (Cohen, Pascual-maximized through extensive training (Stoet & Snyder, 2003, task familiarity (Rubinstein et al, 2001), high S-R compatibility (e.g., Dassonville, Lewis, Foster, & Ashe, 1999;Fitts & Deininger, 1954;Fitts & Seeger, 1953;Fitts & Simon, 1952;Kornblum & Lee, 1995;Proctor, Wang, & Vu, 2002;Simon & Rudell, 1967;Simon & Small, 1969;reviewed in Lien & Proctor, 2002), and S-R mapping cue (Diedrichsen, Hazeltine, Kennerley, & Ivry, 2001;Hazeltine, Bunge, Scanlon, & Gabrieli, 2003;Lien & Proctor, 2002).…”

Section: Coordinate System and Direction Of Task Transfermentioning

confidence: 99%