Two Simon tasks with different sources of conflict: An ERP study of motion- and location-based compatibility effects

The breakdown of the Simon effect in cross‐modal contexts: EEG evidence

“…For tactile trials, none of the task conditions revealed a P300 latency shift (single modality: compatible = 382 ms vs. incompatible = 389 ms; t (14) = −0.74, P = 0.469; d z = 0.19; and in the mixed modality: compatible = 383 ms vs. incompatible = 399 ms; t (14) = −1.39, P = 0.185; d z = 0.36). In general, the visual P300 results are in line with the known literature (Ragot & Renault, ; Valle‐Inclán, ; Leuthold & Sommer, ; Masaki et al ., ; Ideno et al ., ; Galashan et al ., ; Melara et al ., ). We recommend cautious interpretation regarding the failure to observe a P300 shift in the tactile modality given that, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to test P300 latency in a tactile Simon task.…”

“…It has been shown that trial‐to‐trial variations in P300 latency correlate with RTs (Ritter et al ., ). In the Simon task, at least for the visual modality, P300 latency is delayed in incompatible trials compared to compatible trials (Ragot & Renault, ; Valle‐Inclán, ; Leuthold & Sommer, ; Masaki et al ., ; Ideno et al ., ; Galashan et al ., ; Melara et al ., ). This P300‐latency shift in incompatible trials has been interpreted as a marker of perceptual interference, stressing the idea that extracting the relevant stimulus attribute (i.e., color) might take longer in incompatible than compatible trials (hence, perceptual interference; Ragot & Renault, ; Hasbroucq & Guiard, ; Valle‐Inclán, ; Leuthold, ).…”

The Simon effect modulates N2cc and LRP but not the N2pc component

“…In the compatible and incompatible conditions, the visual stimuli were presented 3.1°(visual angle) from the centre of the screen at the centre of the stimulus. The lateralized (CP and IP) and central stimuli were presented in parafoveal and foveal regions respectively (see Bargh and Chartrand, 2000), although differences in stimuli processing due to this eccentricity were not expected (Galashan et al, 2008;Mancebo-Azor et al, 2009). In the compatible and incompatible conditions, a geometric figure (two superimposed orthogonal bars, with the vertical bar longer than the horizontal bar, of similar size and eccentric position as the arrow) appeared in the opposite hemifield to prevent exogenous lateralization in the electroencephalogram (EEG) (see Fig.…”

Spatio-temporal brain dynamics in a combined stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response conflict task

“…This N2 component is supposed to reflect early response inhibition (van Boxtel et al, 2001) or response conflict (Bartholow et al, 2005;Melara et al, 2008;Praamstra et al, 1998;Van't Ent, 2002). Furthermore, S-S and S-R conflicts also result in reduced amplitudes and delayed peak latencies of the centroparietal P3 component (Galashan et al, 2008;Melara et al, 2008;Valle-Inclan, 1996). The P3 is supposed to represent the essential nexus between stimulus identification and response selection (Verleger et al, 2005) and might indicate the updating of taskspecific response representations specifically after conflict induced temporary uncertainties (Donchin and Coles, 1988;Melara and Algom, 2003;Melara et al, 2008).…”

“…Particularly, two questions recently emerged about the underlying spatio-temporal brain dynamics in S-S and S-R conflict processing. The first question relates to the cognitive and temporal level of processing at which both types of conflicts modulate recorded brain signals (Galashan et al, 2008;Melara et al, 2008;Valle-Inclan, 1996;Van't Ent, 2002), and how these different types of conflicts might temporally interact when elicited simultaneously (see De Jong et al, 1994;Hommel, 1997;Kornblum et al, 1999). The second question refers to the problem whether both types of conflicts share common or rely on distinct brain networks of conflict processing (Egner, 2008;Mansouri et al, 2009;Nee et al, 2007;Peterson et al, 2002;Wager et al, 2005).…”