The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon effect: remapping of working space by tool use
- 28 Downloads
The Simon effect, that is the advantage of the spatial correspondence between stimulus and response locations when stimulus location is task irrelevant, occurs even when the task is performed by two participants, each performing a go/no-go task. This effect, known as the joint Simon effect, does not emerge when participants sit outside each other’s peripersonal space, thus suggesting that the presence of an active confederate in peripersonal space might provide a reference for response coding. The present study investigated whether this finding is due to the distance separating the participants and/or to the distance separating each participant and the other agent’s response. In two experiments, pairs of participants performed a social detection task sitting outside each other’s arm reach, with response keys located close to the participants or outside arm reach. When the response key was located outside the participant’s arm reach, he/she could reach it by means of a tool. In Experiment 1, by means of a tool, participants could reach their response key only, while in Experiment 2, they could reach also their co-agent’s response key. The joint Simon effect did not emerge when participants could not reach the co-actor’s response, while it emerged when they could potentially reach the other participant’s response using the tool, but only when turn taking was required. These results may be taken as evidence that the possibility to reach and act upon the co-actor’s response key may be at the bases of compatibility effects observed in joint action contexts requiring complementary responses.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
The manuscript does not report clinical studies or patient data. 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. The study fulfilled the ethical standard procedure recommended by the Italian Association of Psychology (AIP). It was approved by the Department of Communication and Economics of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Cardinali, L., Jacobs, S., Brozzoli, C., Frassinetti, F., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2012). Grab an object with a tool and change your body: Tool-use-dependent changes of body representation for action. Experimental Brain Research,218, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3028-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Sinigaglia, C., & Gallese, V. (2011). Tool-use observation makes far objects ready-to-hand. Neuropsychologia,49(9), 2658–2663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.05.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,20(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15184.108.40.2061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dittrich, K., Bossert, M.-L., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2017a). 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1207690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dolk, T., & Prinz, W. (2016). What it takes to share a task: Sharing versus shaping task representations. In S. S. Obhi & E. S. Cross (Eds.), Cambridge social neuroscience. Shared representations: Sensorimotor foundations of social life (pp. 3–21). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107279353.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). How the body in action shapes the self. Journal of Consciousness Studies,18, 117–143.Google Scholar
- Rossetti, A., Romano, D., Bolognini, N., & Maravita, A. (2015). Dynamic expansion of alert responses to incoming painful stimuli following tool use. Neuropsychologia,70, 486–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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(1), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar