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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
We calculated a priori the sample size required to achieve 95% power to detect a significant interaction between session, trial type and correspondence with the G*power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) software. With an effect size f = 0.25, the power calculation yielded a recommended sample size of at least 23 participants.
Ambrosini, E., Sinigaglia, C., & Costantini, M. (2012). Tie my hands, tie my eyes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 263–266.
Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562237.
Bourgeois, J., & Coello, Y. (2012). Effect of visuomotor calibration and uncertainty on the perception of peripersonal space. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74(6), 1268–1283.
Bourgeois, J., Farnè, A., & Coello, Y. (2014). Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. Acta Psychologica, 148, 91–95.
Brozzoli, C., Gentile, G., Bergouignan, L., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2013). A shared representation of the space near oneself and others in the human premotor cortex. Current Biology, 23(18), 1764–1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.07.004.
Canzoneri, E., Ubaldi, S., Rastelli, V., Finisguerra, A., Bassolino, M., & Serino, A. (2013). Tool-use reshapes the boundaries of body and peripersonal space representations. Experimental Brain Research, 228(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3532-2.
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.
Ciardo, F., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., Rubichi, S., & Iani, C. (2016). Action-space coding in social contexts. Scientific Reports, 6, 22673. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22673.
Ciardo, F., & Wykowska, A. (2018). Response coordination emerges in cooperative but not competitive joint task. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1919. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01919.
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.
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/10.1037/0096-15220.127.116.111.
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.
Dittrich, K., Puffe, L., & Klauer, K. C. (2017b). You are right! Spatial instructions increase social Simon effects. Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 406–412.
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 & Psychophysics, 74, 911–929. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0304-1.
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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00084.
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Lipelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and a theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 974. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974.
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.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Ferraro, L., Iani, C., Mariani, M., Milanese, N., & Rubichi, S. (2011). Facilitation and interference components in the joint Simon task. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2711-2.
Ferraro, L., Iani, C., Mariani, M., Nicoletti, R., Gallese, V., & Rubichi, S. (2012). Look what I am doing: Does observational learning take place in evocative task-sharing situations? PLoS One, 7(8), e43311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043311.
Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). How the body in action shapes the self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18, 117–143.
Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (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.
Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2013). Joint (mis-)representations: A reply to Welsh et al. (2013). Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2012.752688.
Hommel, B. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.
Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.
Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.
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, 849–878.
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 188–196.
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, 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2651-x.
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), e97991. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097991.
Iani, C., Rubichi, S., Ferraro, L., Nicoletti, R., & Gallese, V. (2013). Observational learning without a model is influenced by the observer’s possibility to act: Evidence from the Simon task. Cognition, 128(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.004.
Iani, C., Rubichi, R., Gherri, E., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). Co-occurrence of sequential and practice effects in the Simon task: Evidence for two independent mechanisms affecting response selection. Memory & Cognition, 37, 358–367.
Karlinsky, A., Lam, M. Y., Chua, R., & Hodges, N. J. (2017). Whose turn is it anyway? The moderating role of response-execution certainty on the joint Simon effect. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0901-7. (E-pub head of print).
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
Lam, M. Y., & Chua, R. (2010). Influence of stimulus–response assignment on the joint-action correspondence effect. Psychological Research, 74(5), 476–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0269-4.
Lugli, L., Iani, C., Milanese, N., Sebanz, N., & Rubichi, S. (2015). Spatial parameters at the basis of social transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(3), 840–849. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000047.
Lugli, L., Iani, C., Nicoletti, R., & Rubichi, S. (2013). Emergence of the go/no-go Simon effect by means of practice and mixing paradigms. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.04.021.
Martel, M., Cardinali, L., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2016). Tool-use: An open window into body representation and its plasticity. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(1–2), 82–101.
Michel, R., Bölte, J., & Liepelt, R. (2018). When a Social Experimenter Overwrites Effects of Salient Objects in an Individual Go/No-Go Simon Task: An ERP Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 674. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00674.
Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144–150.
Patanè, I., Farnè, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2017). Cooperative tool-use reveals peripersonal and interpersonal spaces are dissociable. Cognition, 166, 13–22.
Pezzulo, G., Iodice, P., Ferraina, S., & Kessler, K. (2013). Shared action spaces: A basis function framework for social re-calibration of sensorimotor representations supporting joint action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00800.
Prinz, W. (2015). Task representation in individual and joint settings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 268. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00286.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
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.
Ruissen, M. I., & de Bruijn, E. (2016). Competitive game play attenuates self-other integration during joint task performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 341. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00274.
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88(3), B11–B21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00043-x.
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(6), 1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1518.104.22.1684.
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: An ERP study of action planning and control in co-acting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 859–870. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.859.
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.
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.
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory SR compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586.
Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20144.
Welsh, T. N., Higgings, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.06.003.
Welsh, T. N., Kiernan, D., Neyedli, H. F., Ray, M., Pratt, J., Potruff, A., & Weeks, D. J. (2013). Joint Simon effects in extra-personal space. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2012.746635.
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.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Iani, C., Ciardo, F., Panajoli, S. et al. The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon effect: remapping of working space by tool use. Psychological Research 85, 521–532 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01271-6