Sequential analysis of a Simon task - evidence for an attention-shift account

Abstract

We investigated the attention-shift hypothesis of the Simon effect by analysing the effect of repeating relevant colour or irrelevant location of the stimulus in four serial reaction time tasks. In Experiment 1 with short response-stimulus intervals (RSI), we assume that there is no time to engage attention at the fixation cross before the onset of a new stimulus. In agreement with the hypothesis, Experiment 1 reveals no Simon effect when the stimulus location is repeated. In Experiment 2 with long RSI, we observe a Simon effect for location repetitions and alternations. In Experiment 3 with long RSI, we hinder the disengagement of attention by displaying the stimulus after response execution. As expected, the Simon effect is reduced for location repetitions. In Experiment 4 with stimuli additionally presented at the fixation cross, responses are faster if the attention shift towards the centrally presented stimulus corresponds with the location of the required response. Additionally, we argue that binding of the stimulus features into an object or event file better explains the so-called blocking of the automatic response-priming route after a noncorresponding trial.

Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task

“…A typical finding when investigating Simon compatibility effects, for example, is that the size of the Simon effect critically depends on the characteristics of the preceding trial. In particular, the sequential modulation effect reflects the finding that Simon effects in a current trial N are smaller following incompatible trials in N -1 compared to those following compatible trials in N -1 (Akçay & Hazeltine, 2007;Fischer, Dreisbach, & Goschke, 2008;Hommel, Proctor, & Vu, 2004;Notebaert, Soetens, & Melis, 2001;Stürmer, Leuthold, Soetens, Schröter, & Sommer, 2002;Wühr & Ansorge, 2005).…”

“…In binary choice tasks, such sequential modulation effects have often been explained in terms of bottom-up driven S-R feature repetitions and/or feature bindings (Hommel, 1998;Hommel et al, 2001Hommel et al, , 2004Nieuwenhuis, Stins, Posthuma, Polderman, Boomsma, & De Geus, 2006;Notebaert et al, 2001;Wendt, Kluwe, & Peters, 2006). 1 If a stimulus and the response to the stimulus co-occur in time, their features related to task-relevant stimulus or response dimensions are spontaneously integrated into a common event file comprising both stimulus-and response-related feature information such as form and position (Hommel et al, 2004).…”

Practice-induced and sequential modulations of the Simon effect

“…The model that has the most support in the literature is the alternative-route model, where it is suggested that the effect is caused by the activation of a spatial code generated by the irrelevant spatial stimulus attribute (e.g., Kornblum, Hasbroucq, & Osman, 1990;Kornblum & Stevens, 2002). According to this model, when a stimulus dimension overlaps with a response dimension, features of the same stimulus can be processed along two different routes, a controlled route and an automatic responsepriming route (e.g., Hommel & Prinz, 1997;Notebaert, Soetens, & Melis, 2001). The controlled route follows the intentional translation of a stimulus attribute into response activation.…”

“…Besides the modulatory influence of location-relevant practice, SEs can be eliminated (Notebaert & Soetens, 2003;Notebaert et al, 2001) and even reversed when the preceding trial in a serial task is incongruent (e.g., Mordkoff, 1998;Stürmer, Leuthold, Soetens, Schröter, & Sommer, 2002;Valle-Inclán, Hackley, & de Labra, 2002). In terms of the alternative-routes model, this effect was originally explained as the blocking (Stoffels, Van der Molen, & Keuss, 1989) or gating (Mordkoff, 1998) of the unconditional route by control processes.…”

“…The suggestion entails that combinations of stimulus features or stimulus-response (S-R) features are bound together into event files during the execution of a trial and that disruption of the bindings in a subsequent trial leads to a slowing of responses. Hommel et al demonstrated that these repetition effects may mimic the sequential congruency modulation effect (see also Notebaert et al, 2001). The feature integration theory has been challenged, however, on the basis of analyses controlling for stimulus and response repetitions, showing that sequential modulations in the Simon task were not eliminated (Ullsperger, Bylsma, & Botvinick, 2005).…”