The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon effect: remapping of working space by tool use

Iani, Cristina; Ciardo, Francesca; Panajoli, Simone; Lugli, Luisa; Rubichi, Sandro

doi:10.1007/s00426-019-01271-6

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for the Simon effect, several studies reported modulation of the effect according to the social relation between participants. In particular, Sebanz et al (2003) were the first to show that the effect occurs even when the task is shared between two participants and different social factors are manipulated (e.g., Hommel et al, 2009 ; Iani et al, 2014 , 2021 ; Lugli et al, 2015 ; Ciardo et al, 2016 ; Ruissen and de Bruijn, 2016 ). For example, some studies investigated the influence of interpersonal relationships: positive/bad mood or positive/negative relationship with the co-actor (i.e., participants with whom the task is shared), competitive/cooperative instructions to participants modulated the occurrence or the magnitude of the effect (e.g., Hommel et al, 2009 ; Kuhbandner et al, 2010 ; Iani et al, 2011 ; for a review Dolk et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearing the face mask affects our social attention over space

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies suggest that covering the face inhibits the recognition of identity and emotional expressions. However, it might also make the eyes more salient, since they are a reliable index to orient our social and spatial attention. This study investigates (1) whether the pervasive interaction with people with face masks fostered by the COVID-19 pandemic modulates the processing of spatial information essential to shift attention according to other’s eye-gaze direction (i.e., gaze-cueing effect: GCE), and (2) whether this potential modulation interacts with motor responses (i.e., Simon effect). Participants were presented with face cues orienting their gaze to a congruent or incongruent target letter location (gaze-cueing paradigm) while wearing a surgical mask (Mask), a patch (Control), or nothing (No-Mask). The task required to discriminate the identity of the lateralized target letters by pressing one of two lateralized response keys, in a corresponding or a non-corresponding position with respect to the target. Results showed that GCE was not modulated by the presence of the Mask, but it occurred in the No-Mask condition, confirming previous studies. Crucially, the GCE interacted with Simon effect in the Mask and Control conditions, though in different ways. While in the Mask condition the GCE emerged only when target and response positions corresponded (i.e., Simon-corresponding trials), in the Control condition it emerged only when they did not correspond (i.e., Simon-non-corresponding trials). These results indicate that people with face masks induce us to jointly orient our visual attention in the direction of the seen gaze (GCE) in those conditions resembling (or associated with) a general approaching behavior (Simon-corresponding trials). This is likely promoted by the fact that we tend to perceive wearing the mask as a personal safety measure and, thus, someone wearing the face mask is perceived as a trustworthy person. In contrast, people with a patch on their face can be perceived as more threatening, therefore inducing a GCE in those conditions associated with a general avoidance behavior (Simon-non-corresponding trials).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearing the face mask affects our social attention over space

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, in Experiment 1, the co-actor was seated directly behind the participant (creating the illusion of being one entity), while in Experiment 2, the co-actor was seated at a small distance within arm’s length. Several studies have investigated the effect of joint action within and beyond peripersonal space (Guagnano et al, 2013 ; Iani et al, 2021 ; Welsh et al, 2013 ), and suggest that as long as co-actors can reach each other’s response keys, compatibility effects are likely to occur. The significant compatibility effects in both Experiment 1 and 2 support this notion, as in both Experiments the co-actor’s response key was within reach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action prediction modulates self–other integration in joint action

Weiden

Porcu

Liepelt

2022

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often coordinate actions with others, requiring an adjustable amount of self–other integration between actor’s and co-actor’s actions. Previous research suggests that such self–other integration (indexed by the joint Simon effect) is enhanced by agent similarity of the co-actor (e.g., high in intentionality). In this study, we aimed to extend this line of research by testing whether experiencing agency over a co-actor’s actions (vicarious agency) and/or action prediction strengthens the joint Simon effect. For this purpose, we manipulated experienced agency by varying the experienced control over a co-actor’s actions (Experiment 1), and action prediction regarding the co-actor’s actions (Experiment 2). Vicarious agency could effectively be induced, but did not modulate the size of the joint Simon effect. The joint Simon effect was decreased when the co-actor’s actions were unpredictable (vs. predictable) during joint task performance. These findings suggest social agency can be induced and effectively measured in joint action. Action prediction can act as an effective agency cue modulating the amount of self–other integration in joint action.

show abstract

“…This goes against previous research that consistently showed effects for human partners, and generally showed effects even for nonhuman task partners. However, there have been a few studies that have failed to obtain JSEs with human partners (Iani et al, 2019), robot partners (Stenzel et al, 2012, and computer partners (Sahai et al, 2019). These inconsistent results may be due to the fact that the JSE, although reliable, is overall a small effect (Karlinsky et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of the Joint Simon Effect with Human, Robot, and Computer Interface Task Partners: A Pilot Study

Sobel

Sims

2022

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This pilot study assessed whether there are fundamental differences in how people perceive human and nonhuman task partners using a joint Simon task. Fourteen participants completed the task with human, robot, and computer task partners. Results showed no joint Simon effect for any task partner, and the robot and computer were both perceived as not very humanlike. However, while the robot was seen as less accurate and slower than the human task partner, the computer was consistently viewed as more accurate and faster. This indicates that there may be differences in user’s perceptions of different types of technological task partners, and that for certain tasks, robots may be seen as inferior while computers are viewed as superior.

show abstract

The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon effect: remapping of working space by tool use

Cited by 8 publications

References 53 publications

Wearing the face mask affects our social attention over space

Wearing the face mask affects our social attention over space

Action prediction modulates self–other integration in joint action

Investigation of the Joint Simon Effect with Human, Robot, and Computer Interface Task Partners: A Pilot Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About