Distinguishing the time- and magnitude-difference accounts of the Simon effect: Evidence from the reach-to-touch paradigm

Abstract

A Simon effect occurs when the irrelevant spatial attributes of a stimulus conflict with choice responses based on non-spatial stimulus attributes. Many theories of the Simon effect assume that activation from task-irrelevant spatial attributes becomes available before the activation from taskrelevant attributes. We refer to this as the time-difference account. Other theories follow a magnitude-difference account, assuming activation from relevant and irrelevant attributes becomes available at the same time, but with the activation from irrelevant attributes initially being stronger. To distinguish these two accounts, we incorporated the responsesignal procedure into the reach-to-touch paradigm to map out the emergence of the Simon effect. We also used a carefully calibrated neutral condition to reveal differences in the initial onset of the influence of relevant and irrelevant information. Our results establish that irrelevant spatial information becomes available earlier than relevant non-spatial information. This finding is consistent with the time-difference account and inconsistent with the magnitude-difference account. However, we did find a magnitude effect, in the form of reduced interference from irrelevant information, for the second of a sequence of two incongruent trials.

Movement Improves the Quality of Temporal Perception and Decision Making

“…More recently, movement-related paradigms have been adopted to examine perceptual decision making (Freeman et al, 2011). Here, subjects are required to move a robotic manipulandum to one of two locations, each of which corresponds to a particular choice (Barca and Pezzulo, 2012;Finkbeiner and Heathcote, 2016;Hagura et al, 2017). By exploiting the dynamics of reaching trajectories (e.g., the velocity and force during the movement) different parameters can be measured to reveal a moment-by-moment sampling of the motor system and the deliberation process (Wolpert and Landy, 2012).…”

When awareness gets in the way: Reactivation aversion effects resolve the generality/specificity paradox in sensorimotor interference tasks.

“…Although target location and target identity are, of course, presented simultaneously, the former affects the motor system before the latter does(Cespón, Galdo-Álvarez, & Díaz, 2013;Finkenbeiner & Heathcote, 2016).…”

A reach-to-touch investigation on the nature of reading in the Stroop task

“…The OPTA procedure used here has been described in detail in Finkbeiner et al (2014) and Finkbeiner and Heathcote (2016). In summary, OPTA uses a regression model with x-velocity as the dependent variable and MIT (with polynomial terms up to the 15 th order) as the predictor variable.…”

“…For instance, in the Simon task literature, the reach-to-touch paradigm has already been used to investigate temporal properties of the effect (Porcu et al, 2016;Buetti & Kerzel, 2010;Finkbeiner & Heathcote, 2016). In a typical design, participants may be presented with a cognitive task that requires a speeded choice between two or more response alternatives.…”