The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration

Dolk, Thomas; Hommel, Bernhard; Schütz‐Bosbach, Simone; Prinz, Wolfgang; Liepelt, Roman

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974

Cited by 156 publications

(198 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

178

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter result is in line with the referentialcoding account (Dolk et al, 2014;Dolk et al, 2013), and specifically with the intentional-weighting hypothesis (Memelink & Hommel, 2013). The pointing gesture did indeed increase the discrepancy between the compatible and incompatible conditions in the horizontal space.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Moving from the aforementioned assumption, the referential-coding account (Dolk et al, 2014;Dolk et al, 2013) suggests that in the context of the JST, events can be coded as potential effects of an action, regardless of the specific source (e.g., a participant, a computer, or a metronome). Hence, each event produced beside a participant is able to trigger a conflict with the potential events produced by the participant him-or herself (Prinz, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the absence of a human coactor and the nature of the events produced by such objects, these effects cannot be easily accounted by the co-representation hypothesis. Dolk and colleagues (Dolk et al, 2014;Dolk et al, 2013) have thus put forward an alternative model, namely the referential-coding account, which rests on the ideomotor theory (Prinz, 1997) and on the theory of event coding (TEC; Hommel, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pointing out mechanisms underlying joint action

Porcu¹,

Bölling²,

Lappe³

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have shown that spatial and featurebased attention can contribute to inducing a spatial compatibility effect in both the standard Simon task and the joint Simon task. Less work generally has been devoted to investigating how attention modulates spatial compatibility effects. In the present study, we aimed to explore whether indirectly manipulating the degree of attention necessary to respond to a compatible or an incompatible stimulus can modulate the spatial compatibility effect in a joint Simon task and elicit a compatibility effect in the individual go-no-go Simon task. To this end, we biased spatial attention to the compatible stimulus by asking participants to perform a pointing response always toward the compatible side, regardless of the stimulus location. Crucially, reaction times-recorded at gesture onset-showed a compatibility effect pattern in the individual condition and an additional modulation in the joint condition. These results show that the spatial attention intrinsic to action planning can affect both individual and joint Simon tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pointing out mechanisms underlying joint action

Porcu¹,

Bölling²,

Lappe³

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some studies have observed the correspondence effect in a special version of this task, called the joint go-nogo task, in which two participants each perform a go-nogo task on complementary target features (e.g., Sebanz, Knoblich, & Prinz, 2003, 2005Sebanz, Knoblich, Prinz, & Wascher, 2006). Whereas some researchers have favored a social interpretation of the effect and hypothesized a tendency for people to co-represent other persons' actions (i.e., the action co-representation account; see Sebanz & Knoblich, 2009, for reviews), others have argued that any salient, spatial event, irrespective of whether it appears in a social context, could elicit the correspondence effect inasmuch as it provides a response reference (i.e., the referential coding account; see Dolk et al, 2014, for a review). Below, we briefly discuss those two different views.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Stimulus–response correspondence in go–nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?

Lien

Pedersen

Proctor

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2-choice tasks, responses are faster when stimulus location corresponds to response location, even when stimulus location is irrelevant. Dolk et al. (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 39:1248-1260, 2013a) found this stimulus-response correspondence effect with a single response location in a go-nogo task when an irrelevant Japanese waving cat was present. They argued that salient objects trigger spatial coding of the response relative to that object. We examined this claim using both behavioral and lateralized readiness potential (LRP) measures. In Experiment 1 participants determined the pitch of a left- or right-positioned tone, whereas in Experiment 2 they determined the color of a dot within a centrally located hand pointing left, right, or straight ahead. In both experiments, participants performed a go-nogo task with the right-index finger and a 2-choice task with both index fingers, with a left-positioned Japanese waving cat present or absent. For the go-nogo task, the cat induced a correspondence effect on response times (RT) to the tones (Experiment 1) but not the visual stimuli (Experiment 2). For the 2-choice task, a correspondence effect was evident in all conditions in both experiments. Cat's presence/absence did not significantly modulate the effect for right and left responses, although there was a trend toward increased RT and LRP for right responses in Experiment 1. The results imply that a salient, irrelevant object could provide a reference frame for response coding when attention is available to process it, as is likely in an auditory task (Experiment 1) but not a visual task (Experiment 2).

show abstract

“…In a set of recent theoretical approaches, namely Referential Coding and Theory of Event Coding (Dolk et al, 2014;Hommel et al, 2001), joint effects are attributed to the overlapping perceptual (stimulus) and motor (action) codes provided in the environment. These theories were mainly proposed to explain both social and non-social Simon effects, and they claim that contextual cues may influence the action representations due to the conflicting codes they provide, and this causes action selection difficulty.…”

Section: Joint Actions Attention and Cognitive Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural correlates of verbal joint action: ERPs reveal common perception and action systems in a shared-Stroop task

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tRecent social-cognitive research suggests that the anticipation of co-actors' actions influences people's mental representations. However, the precise nature of such representations is still unclear. In this study we investigated verbal joint representations in a delayed Stroop paradigm, where each participant responded to one color after a short delay. Participants either performed the task as a single actor (singleaction, Experiment 1), or they performed it together (joint-action, Experiment 2). We investigated effects of co-actors' actions on the ERP components associated with perceptual conflict (Go N2) and response selection (P3b). Compared to single-action, joint-action reduced the N2 amplitude congruency effect when participants had to respond (Go trials), indicating that representing a co-actor's utterance helped to dissociate action codes and attenuated perceptual conflict for the responding participant. Yet, on NoGo trials the centro-parietal P3 (P3b) component amplitude increased for joint-action, suggesting that participants mapped the stimuli onto the co-actor's upcoming response as if it were their own response. We conclude that people represent others' utterances similarly to the way they represent their own utterances, and that shared perception-action codes for self and others can sometimes reduce, rather than enhance, perceptual conflict.

show abstract

The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration

Cited by 156 publications

References 102 publications

Pointing out mechanisms underlying joint action

Pointing out mechanisms underlying joint action

Stimulus–response correspondence in go–nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?

Neural correlates of verbal joint action: ERPs reveal common perception and action systems in a shared-Stroop task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About