Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Barriers to success: physical separation optimizes event-file retrieval in shared workspaces

Abstract

Sharing tasks with other persons can simplify our work and life, but seeing and hearing other people's actions may also be very distracting. The joint Simon effect (JSE) is a standard measure of referential response coding when two persons share a Simon task. Sequential modulations of the joint Simon effect (smJSE) are interpreted as a measure of event-file processing containing stimulus information, response information and information about the just relevant control-state active in a given social situation. This study tested effects of physical (Experiment 1) and virtual (Experiment 2) separation of shared workspaces on referential coding and event-file processing using a joint Simon task. In Experiment 1, participants performed this task in individual (go–nogo), joint and standard Simon task conditions with and without a transparent curtain (physical separation) placed along the imagined vertical midline of the monitor. In Experiment 2, participants performed the same tasks with and without receiving background music (virtual separation). For response times, physical separation enhanced event-file retrieval indicated by an enlarged smJSE in the joint Simon task with curtain than without curtain (Experiment1), but did not change referential response coding. In line with this, we also found evidence for enhanced event-file processing through physical separation in the joint Simon task for error rates. Virtual separation did neither impact event-file processing, nor referential coding, but generally slowed down response times in the joint Simon task. For errors, virtual separation hampered event-file processing in the joint Simon task. For the cognitively more demanding standard two-choice Simon task, we found music to have a degrading effect on event-file retrieval for response times. Our findings suggest that adding a physical separation optimizes event-file processing in shared workspaces, while music seems to lead to a more relaxed task processing mode under shared task conditions. In addition, music had an interfering impact on joint error processing and more generally when dealing with a more complex task in isolation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Referential coding allows separating internally and externally activated feature codes. Internally activated feature codes refer to the activation of representations of own intended anticipated action effects, while externally activated feature codes are those codes being perceived by other humans (Hommel, 2009; Hommel et al., 2001; Liepelt, von Cramon, & Prinz, 2008; Prinz, 1997) or event-producing objects (Dolk et al., 2013). Due to a common representational level of action perception, action imagination and action production (Prinz, 1997) own planned and perceived or imagined action effects produce an action discrimination conflict for action control. This conflict can be resolved by emphasizing (cf. intentional weighting principle; Memelink & Hommel, 2013) on features discriminating best between them in a given task context (Hommel, 1993; Hommel et al., 2001; Sellaro, Dolk, Colzato, Liepelt, & Hommel, 2015)—that in the joint Simon task is the spatial dimension.

  2. 2.

    For the standard Simon task go and nogo transitions refer to same and different response location, respectively (i.e., go=left response, nogo=right response).

  3. 3.

    We performed an additional ANOVA including the factors Order (with the 6 different orders performed) and Setting (joint vs. individual vs. standard Simon task) to rule out any order effects. The analysis revealed no significant main effect of Order, F(5, 16) = 0.75, p = 0.06, partial η 2 = 0.19. We also did not find any significant interaction effects with the factor Order (Fs < 2.90, ps > 0.124), except a significant interaction of Order × Curtain × Setting × Transition, F(10, 35) = 2.90, p < 0.05, partial η 2 = 0.476.

  4. 4.

    For the standard Simon task go and nogo transitions refer to same and different response location, respectively (i.e., go=left response, nogo=right response).

  5. 5.

    The additional ANOVA including the factors Order (with the 6 different orders performed) and Setting (joint vs. individual vs. standard Simon task) performed to rule out any order effects revealed no significant main or interaction effect with the factor Order (Fs < 2.34, ps > 0.24).

References

  1. Akcay, C., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 742–748.

  2. Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2009). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.

  3. Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: Sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 371–385.

  4. Banbury, S. P., & Berry, D. C. (2005). Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48, 25–37.

  5. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.

  6. Cassidy, G., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (2007). The effect of background music and background noise on the task performance of introverts and extraverts. Psychology of Music, 35, 517–537.

  7. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). The effects of background auditory interference and extraversion on creative and cognitive task performance. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1, p2.

  8. De Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Kuijer, P. P. F. M., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2005). The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: A systematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48, 119–134.

  9. Dittrich, K., Bossert, M., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, C. (2017). The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: On the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1207690.

  10. Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K. C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736.

  11. Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 74, 911–929.

  12. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 84. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00084.

  13. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 974.

  14. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 1248–1260. doi:10.1037/a0031031.

  15. Dolk, T., Liepelt, R., Villringer, A., Prinz, W., & Ragert, P. (2012). Morphometric gray matter differences of the medial frontal cortex influence the social Simon effect. Neuroimage, 61, 1249–1254.

  16. Furnham, A., & Allass, K. (1999). The influence of musical distraction on varying complexity on the cognitive-performance of extraverts and introverts. European Journal of Personality, 13, 27–38.

  17. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 121, 480–506.

  18. Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355.

  19. Hallam, S., Price, J., & Katsarou, G. (2002). The effects of background music on primary school pupils’ task performance. Educational Studies, 28, 112–122.

  20. Haynes, B. P. (2007). The impact of the behavioural environment on office productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 5, 158–171.

  21. Hilliard, O. M., & Tolin, P. (1979). Effects of familiarity with background music on performance of simple and difficult reading comprehension. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 713–714.

  22. Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.

  23. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.

  24. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.

  25. Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512–526.

  26. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.

  27. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.

  28. Huang, R. H., & Shih, Y. N. (2011). Effects of background music on concentration of workers. Work, 38, 383–387.

  29. Iwanaga, M., & Ito, T. (2002). Disturbance effect of music on processing verbal and spatial memories. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 1251–1258.

  30. Kämpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2010). The impact of background music on adult listeners: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 39, 424–448.

  31. Kiernan, D., Ray, M., & Welsh, T. N. (2012). Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19, 914–920.

  32. Kiger, D. (1989). The effects of music information load on a reading comprehension task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 531–534.

  33. Klempova, B., & Liepelt, R. (2015). Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon task. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0664-y.

  34. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility – A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 252–270.

  35. Liepelt, R., Klempova, B., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Ragert, P., Nitsche, M. A., & Hommel, B. (2016). The medial frontal cortex mediates self-other discrimination in the joint Simon task: A tDCS study. Journal of Psychophysiology, 30, 87–101.

  36. Liepelt, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). How two share two tasks: Evidence of a social psychological refractory period effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 387–396.

  37. Liepelt, R., von Cramon, Y., & Brass, M. (2008). How do we infer others’ goals from non-stereotypic actions? The outcome of context-sensitive inferential processing in right inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortex. Neuroimage, 43, 784–792.

  38. Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the social Simon paradigm. Psychological Research, 77, 240–248.

  39. Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research, 75, 366–375.

  40. Lu, C., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 2, 174–207.

  41. MacDonald, R. A. R., Mitchell, L., Dillon, T., Serpell, M. G., Davis, J. B., & Ashley, E. A. (2003). An empirical investigation of the anxiolytic and pain reducing effects of music. Psychology of Music, 31, 187–203.

  42. Mayfield, C., & Moss, S. (1989). Effect of music tempo on task performance. Psychological Reports, 65, 1283–1290.

  43. Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.

  44. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Spitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164–169.

  45. North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and driving game performance. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 285–292.

  46. Notebaert, W., Soetens, E., & Melis, A. (2001). Sequential modulation of a Simon task—evidence for an attention-shift account. Psychological Research, 65, 170–184.

  47. Philipp, A. M., & Prinz, W. (2010). Evidence for a role of the responding agent in the joint compatibility effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 1–13.

  48. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.

  49. Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C. H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory and Cognition, 27, 63–77.

  50. Ramenzoni, V. C., Davis, T. J., Riley, M. A., Shockley, K., & Baker, A. A. (2011). Joint action in a cooperative precision task: Nested processes of intrapersonal and interpersonal coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 447–457.

  51. Röder, B., Kusmierek, A., Spence, C., & Schicke, T. (2007). Developmental vision determines the reference frame for the multisensory control of action. PNAS, 104, 4753–4758.

  52. Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 493–502.

  53. Saklani, A., & Jha, S. (2014). Impact of ergonomic changes on office employee productivity. International Journal of Management Research, 2, 41–56.

  54. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing other’s actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.

  55. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus–response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.

  56. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: An ERP study on action planning and control in coacting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 859–870.

  57. Sebanz, N., Rebbechi, D., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Frith, C. D. (2007). Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing. Social Neuroscience, 2, 81–95.

  58. Seddigh, A., Berntson, E., Danielson, C. B., & Westerlund, H. (2014). Concentration requirements modify the effect of office type on indicators of health and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 167–174.

  59. Sellaro, R., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Liepelt, R., & Hommel, B. (2015). Referential coding does not rely on location features: Evidence for a nonspatial joint Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 41, 186–195.

  60. Sellaro, R., Treccani, B., Rubichi, S., & Cubelli, R. (2013). When co-action eliminates the Simon effect: Disentangling the impact of co-actor`s presence and task sharing on joint-task performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 844.

  61. Shockley, K., Santana, M., & Fowler, C. A. (2003). Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 29, 326–332.

  62. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Advances in psychology (Vol. 65, pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

  63. Simon, J. A., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.

  64. Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 1117–1121.

  65. Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2010). Actions travel with their objects: Evidence for dynamic event files. Psychological Research, 74, 50–58.

  66. Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2014). Sequential modulations of the Simon effect depend on episodic retrieval. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1–16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00855.

  67. Spapé, M. M., & Ravaja, N. (2016). Not my problem: Vicarious conflict adaptation with human and virtual co-actors. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 606. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00606.

  68. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.

  69. Thompson, W. F., Schellenberg, E. G., & Husain, G. (2001). Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect. Psychological Science, 12, 248–251.

  70. Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience., 20, 2015–2024.

  71. Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Jing, J. T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. L. (2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353–362.

  72. Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Long-term aftereffects of response inhibition: Memory retrieval, task goals, and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1229–1235.

  73. Vlainic, E., Liepelt, R., Colzato, L. S., Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (2010). The virtual co-actor: The social Simon effect does not rely on online feedback from the other. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 208. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00208.

  74. Welsh, T. N., Higgins, L., Ray, M., & Weeks, D. J. (2007). Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? Human Movement Science, 26, 853–866.

  75. Wenke, D., Atmaca, S., Holländer, A., Liepelt, R., Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2011). What is shared in joint action? Issues of co-representation, response conflict, and agent identification. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 147–172.

  76. Winkel, J., Wijnen, J. G., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Groen, I. I. A., Derrfuss, J., Danielmeier, C., & Forstmann, B. U. (2009). Your conflict matters to me! Behavioral and neural manifestations of control adjustment after self-experienced and observed decision-conflict. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 57. doi:10.3389/neuro.09.057.2009.

  77. Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 705–731.

  78. Yanni (1986). Nostalgia. Keys to Imagination [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.

  79. Yanni (1993a). One man’s dream. In my time [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.

  80. Yanni (1993b). The end of August. In my time [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.

  81. Yanni (1993c). In the mirror. In my time [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.

  82. Yanni (1993d). Until the last moment. In my time [audio disc], Private Music, BMG.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present research was financially supported by the German Research Foundation Grants DFG LI 2115/1-1; 1-3 awarded to R.L. We would like to thank Kerstin Dittrich and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Correspondence to Bibiana Klempova or Roman Liepelt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 32 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klempova, B., Liepelt, R. Barriers to success: physical separation optimizes event-file retrieval in shared workspaces. Psychological Research 82, 1158–1176 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0886-2

Download citation