Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp 833–841 | Cite as

Whose turn is it anyway? The moderating role of response-execution certainty on the joint Simon effect

  • April Karlinsky
  • Melanie Y. Lam
  • Romeo Chua
  • Nicola J. HodgesEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

When a two-choice “Simon task” is distributed between two people, performance in the shared go/no-go task resembles performance in the whole task alone. This finding has been described as the joint Simon effect (JSE). Unlike the individual go/no-go task, not only is the typical joint Simon task shared with another person, but also the imperative stimuli dictate whose turn it is to respond. Therefore, in the current study, we asked whether removing the agent discrimination component of the joint Simon task influences co-representation. Participants performed the typical joint Simon task, which was compared to two turn-taking versions of the task. For these turn-taking tasks, pairs predictably alternated turns on consecutive trials, with their respective imperative stimulus presented either on 100% of their turns (fully predictable group) or on 83% of their turns (response-uncertainty group, 17% no-go catch trials). The JSE was absent in the fully predictable, turn-taking task, but emerged similarly under the response-uncertainty condition and the typical joint Simon task condition where there is both turn and response-execution-related uncertainty. These results demonstrate that conflict related to agent discrimination is likely not a critical factor driving the JSE, whereas conflict surrounding the need to execute a response (and hence the degree of preparation) appears fundamental to co-representation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) award to NJH. We thank the Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their thought provoking comments and suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was funded by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada awarded to Hodges (RGPIN-2016-04269).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national 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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., Prinz, W., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Action co-representation: The joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience, 3(3–4), 410–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2015). My partner is also on my mind: Social context modulates the N1 response. Experimental Brain Research, 233(1), 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böckler, A., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2012). Effects of a coactor’s focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1404–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Böckler, A., & Sebanz, N. (2012). A co-actor’s focus of attention affects stimulus processing and task performance: An ERP study. Social Neuroscience, 7(6), 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlsen, A. N., Chua, R., Dakin, C. J., Sanderson, D. J., Inglis, J. T., & Franks, I. M. (2008). Startle reveals an absence of advance motor programming in a go/no-go task. Neuroscience Letters, 434, 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsen, A. N., Chua, R., Inglis, J. T., Sanderson, D. J., & Franks, I. M. (2004). Can prepared responses be stored subcortically? Experimental Brain Research, 159(3), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dittrich, K., Bossert, M.-L., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2016). The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: On the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1808–1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014a). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1248–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014b). The joint flanker effect: Less social than previously thought. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(5), 1224–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elekes, F., Bródy, G., Halász, E., & Király, I. (2016). Enhanced encoding of the co-actor’s target stimuli during a shared non-motor task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(12), 2376–2389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eskenazi, T., Doerrfeld, A., Logan, G. D., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2013). Your words are my words: Effects of acting together on encoding. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 1026–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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(3), 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20(7), 794–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iani, C., Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., Arcuri, L., & Rubichi, S. (2011). The role of group membership on the modulation of joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iani, C., Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., & Rubichi, S. (2014). The carry-over effect of competition in task-sharing: Evidence from the joint Simon task. PLoS One, 9(6), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lam, M. Y., & Chua, R. (2010). Influence of stimulus-response assignment on the joint-action correspondence effect. Psychological Research, 74(5), 476–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2(2), 174–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maslovat, D., Carlsen, A. N., & Franks, I. M. (2012). Subcortical motor circuit excitability during simple and choice reaction time. Behavioral Neuroscience, 126(3), 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McClung, J. S., Jentzsch, I., & Reicher, S. D. (2013). Group membership affects spontaneous mental representation: Failure to represent the out-group in a joint action task. PLoS One, 8(11), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milanese, N., Iani, C., Sebanz, N., & Rubichi, S. (2011). Contextual determinants of the social-transfer-of-learning effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Müller, B. C. N., Kühn, S., van Baaren, R. B., Dotsch, R., Brass, M., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011). Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members’ actions. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Philipp, A. M., & Prinz, W. (2010). Evidence for a role of the responding agent in the joint compatibility effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(11), 2159–2171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sebanz, N., Rebbechi, D., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Frith, C. (2007). Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing. Social Neuroscience, 2(2), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions towards the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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(2), 353–362.Google Scholar
  30. Vesper, C., Butterfill, S., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2010). A minimal architecture for joint action. Neural Networks, 23(8–9), 998–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Welsh, T. N., Kiernan, D., Neyedli, H. F., Ray, M., Pratt, J., Potruff, A., & Weeks, D. J. (2013). Joint Simon effects in extrapersonal space. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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(2), 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • April Karlinsky
    • 1
  • Melanie Y. Lam
    • 2
  • Romeo Chua
    • 1
  • Nicola J. Hodges
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of KinesiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Human KineticsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonishCanada

Personalised recommendations