The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon effect: remapping of working space by tool use

Abstract

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    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.

References

  1. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bourgeois, J., & Coello, Y. (2012). Effect of visuomotor calibration and uncertainty on the perception of peripersonal space. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74(6), 1268–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bourgeois, J., Farnè, A., & Coello, Y. (2014). Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. Acta Psychologica, 148, 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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/10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dittrich, K., Puffe, L., & Klauer, K. C. (2017b). You are right! Spatial instructions increase social Simon effects. Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 406–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). How the body in action shapes the self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18, 117–143.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 188–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56, 144–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Patanè, I., Farnè, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2017). Cooperative tool-use reveals peripersonal and interpersonal spaces are dissociable. Cognition, 166, 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Prinz, W. (2015). Task representation in individual and joint settings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 268. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00286.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Iani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Ethical approval

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

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation