Task demands determine hand posture bias on conflict processing in a Simon task

Abstract

A huge body of research in humans and monkeys has provided evidence for altered processing of items that are presented close to the hands. At the same time, the underlying mechanisms that explain why objects close to the hands are processed differently from objects far from the hands are still debated. Empirical demonstrations have provided evidence for the involvement of bottom-up influences, but also for top-down influences of task relevance. Objects close to the hands change spatial attentional processing or are subject to increased cognitive control. The present study demonstrated that variations in the task-processing demands predicted the hand posture influence on conflict resolution in a Simon task. Participants responded with their hands either at the monitor (close to the stimuli) or on their knees (far from the stimuli). The Simon effect was significantly reduced for the handsclose as compared to the hands-far condition when participants performed a numerical size judgment (Exps. 1 and 2). In contrast, the Simon effect was significantly increased for the hands-close condition when the Simon task consisted of a low-level perceptual feature discrimination (i.e., color task, Exp. 2). The obtained task-processing specificity provides further evidence that a highly flexible system underlies hand posture effects on stimulus processing.

The Multimodal Go-Nogo Simon Effect: Signifying the Relevance of Stimulus Features in the Go-Nogo Simon Paradigm Impacts Event Representations and Task Performance

“…Thus, an effect of different modality pairings is unlikely to explain this discrepancy. Instead, the opposite effects between the Heed study and our study are more likely to be attributed to different task demands ( Liepelt and Fischer, 2016 ) and whether the joint task allows a division of labor or not. When a division of labor across persons is possible, the burden or distraction of alternative event representations is reduced (cf.…”

Dual-Tasking in the Near-Hand Space: Effects of Stimulus-Hand Proximity on Between-Task Shifts in the Psychological Refractory Period Paradigm

“…These findings were interpreted as evidence for an increased level of cognitive control involvement during near-hand conditions. Although this is in line with other reports of increased cognitive control in near-hand space (e.g., Davoli et al, 2010 ; Liepelt and Fischer, 2016 ), the mechanisms by which stimulus-hand proximity might reduce switching costs have not yet been identified. Current explanations range from an increased maintenance of task instructions to the activation of the correct S-R translation rule ( Weidler and Abrams, 2014 ) due to enhanced cue processing.…”

“…Also, our results suggest that, despite obvious mechanistic similarities between diverse dual-tasking paradigms ( Koch et al, 2018 ), there may at least be some processes that differ substantially between the attentional blink, the task switching paradigm and the PRP paradigm. From thus we conclude that, while a large number of attentional and cognitive effects seem to be sensitive to manipulations of embodied cognition such as our hand proximity manipulation ( Reed et al, 2006 ; Abrams et al, 2008 ; Gozli et al, 2012 ; Weidler and Abrams, 2014 ; Liepelt and Fischer, 2016 ), we think that it is important to show that some cognitive operations seem to be quite robust and relatively independent of hand proximity. Our findings are not only relevant for basic research on multitasking and the near-hand space, but also for more applied dual-task settings.…”

“…Since these findings were obtained, considerable effort has been put into exploring behavioral performance in healthy individuals during visual cognition tasks in the near-hand space (for reviews see Tseng et al, 2012 ; Brockmole et al, 2013 ; Abrams et al, 2015 ; Goodhew et al, 2015 ; Thomas and Sunny, 2017 ). Study findings have shown that, for example, task processing in near-hand space includes increased visual working memory performance ( Tseng and Bridgeman, 2011 ), emphasized magnocellular information processing ( Gozli et al, 2012 ; Goodhew et al, 2014 ), enhanced cognitive control ( Wang et al, 2014 ; Weidler and Abrams, 2014 ; Liepelt and Fischer, 2016 ), and enhanced attention ( Reed et al, 2006 ; Abrams et al, 2008 ). Moreover, visual processing in the near-hand space can be biased, not only by the mere presence of the hands, but also by the specific hand-posture ( Thomas, 2015 ), plasticity ( Makin et al, 2010 ; Reed et al, 2017 ; Thomas, 2017 ), and task-demands ( Goodhew and Clarke, 2016 ; Liepelt and Fischer, 2016 ).…”

“…There is accumulating experimental evidence ( Liepelt et al, 2011 ; Fischer and Hommel, 2012 ) and theoretical rationale ( Meyer and Kieras, 1997 ; Logan and Gordon, 2001 ) that suggests the involvement of cognitive control processes during the scheduling and coordination of two simultaneous tasks (dual tasking). If near hand space alters cognitive control and attention ( Abrams et al, 2008 ; Wang et al, 2014 ; Weidler and Abrams, 2014 ; Liepelt and Fischer, 2016 ) and between-task shifts during dual tasking involve cognitive control and attention ( Meyer and Kieras, 1997 ; Logan and Gordon, 2001 ; Luria and Meiran, 2003 ; Koch et al, 2018 ), one should predict a modulation of dual-tasking performance in the near-hand space as compared to far-hand space. Also, societal and technological advances have increased the demands on multimedia multitasking and the complexity of human-technological interactions.…”