Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation?

Welsh, Timothy N.; Higgins, Laura; Ray, Matthew; Weeks, Daniel J.

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2007.06.003

Cited by 68 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most notably, joint SCEs are much smaller than SCEs found in forced two-choice tasks (the SCEs of forced two-choice tasks reported by , ranged between 24 and 42 ms, whereas joint SCEs ranged between 5 and 6 ms; see also Welsh, 2009;Welsh, Higgins, Ray, & Weeks, 2007). argued that this difference might be due to the fact that the spatial response dimension is most salient in a forced twochoice task, in which participants are responsible for both left and right response keys.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

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

Dittrich

Dolk

Rothe-Wulf

et al. 2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

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

Dittrich

Dolk

Rothe-Wulf

et al. 2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Smaller compatibility effects may occur in a joint than in a two-choice task because participants only need to execute one response in the joint task. That is, because the alternate response is not executed in the joint task, representations of the (co-actor's) alternative responses may never reach the same level of activation as when the actual alternative response is required in the two-choice task (see also Lam & Chua, 2010;Welsh et al, 2007). More importantly, the inverse JSE suggests that a functionally similar set of processes and codings are employed in the joint and two-choice tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, participants experienced response activation and competition whether the alternative response was their own (two-choice task) or their partner's (joint task). Thus, Sebanz et al argued that the joint Simon effect (JSE) emerged because participants engaged in action co-representation and represented their co-actor's responses in a way functionally similar to how they represented their own (see also Lam & Chua, 2010;Tsai & Brass, 2007;Tsai, Kuo, Hung & Tzeng, 2008;Welsh, Higgins, Ray & Weeks, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that simply placing an inanimate object beside the responding effector during an individual go-no-go task produced a spatial-compatibility effect. Furthermore, others have reported that when there is no spatial reference, such as in the individual go-no-go task or when the co-actor is outside of peripersonal space, the compatibility effect disappears (Guagnano et al, 2010;Welsh et al, 2007;cf. Tsai et al, 2008;Welsh et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The joint Simon effect (JSE) is a spatialcompatibility effect that emerges when two people complete complementary components of a Simon task. In typical JSE studies, two participants sit beside each other and perform gono-go tasks in which they respond to one of two stimuli by pressing a button. According to the action co-representation account, JSEs emerge because each participant represents their partner's response in addition to their own, causing the same conflicts in processing that would occur if an individual responded to both stimuli (i.e., as in a two-choice task). Because the response buttons are typically in front of participants, however, an alternative explanation is that JSEs are the result of a dimensional overlap between target and response locations coded with respect to another salient object (e.g., the co-actor's effector). To contrast these hypotheses, the participants in the present study completed two-choice and joint Simon tasks in which they were asked to focus on generating an aftereffect in the space contralateral to their response. Hommel (Psychological Research 55:270-279, 1993) previously reported that, when participants completed a two-choice task under such effect-focused instructions, spatialcompatibility effects emerged that were based on the aftereffect location instead of the response location. Consistent with the co-representation account, the results of the present study were that an inverse aftereffect-based (i.e., not a responselocation-based) compatibility effect was observed in both the two-choice and joint tasks. The overall pattern of results does not fit with the spatial-coding account and is discussed in the context of the extant JSE literature.

show abstract

“…They are also less likely to be diverted by the trappings of self-formed groups such as social distractions. Significantly, Welsh et al (2007) demonstrated that students working together may actually impede each other. In a student partnership on a computer laboratory task, one partner watching the other perform a task caused the student to perform the task slower and with less accuracy.…”

Section: International Journal Of Research Studies In Education 67mentioning

confidence: 99%

The benefits of individual versus group work in a biology based laboratory setting

Cronin¹,

McCabe²

2017

IJRSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory science classes and group work are almost inextricably linked in student college life today. The merits of both are extolled by both educators and future employers as a fundamental part of a rounded qualified graduate. However, there is little evidence to the contrary, particularly in laboratory based programs. This study aims to determine the students' perception of the benefits of different working scenarios in a biological laboratory setting. The study followed 32 students in their third year of their college program working in three different biology based laboratory classes. During each of these laboratory classes the students either worked alone, worked with a preferred partner or worked with an assigned partner. The students were asked to grade their experiences in a survey. The students were asked to reflect on the following areas: enjoyment of experience, understanding of activities, laboratory technique and time efficiency. Mixed modal analysis of variance and pair-wise analyses were used to determine significance between the differing work group scenarios. The laboratory group make-up had no impact on the student enjoyment of the laboratory class. There was also no significant impact on the students' ability to perform the laboratory exercise in a time efficient manner. The analysis did however indicate that students who work alone or with their preferred partner have a greater understanding of the subject matter against those who worked with an assigned partner. The results also suggest that students who worked alone had significantly improved laboratory technique compared to student working in a group.

show abstract

Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation?

Cited by 68 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention

The benefits of individual versus group work in a biology based laboratory setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About