The functional role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect

Summary Two experiments investigated relative spatial coding in the Simon effect. It was hypothesized that relative spatial coding is carried out with reference to the position of the focus of visual attention. The spatial code for an imperative stimulus presented exactly at the position of focal attention should be neutral on the horizontal plane, and therefore no Simon effect should be observed. However, when the imperative stimulus is presented to the left or to the right of the current position of focal attention, the spatial code should not be neutral, thus producing a Simon effect. In both experiments, focal attention was manipulated either by a peripherally presented onset precue (Experiment 1) or by a centrally presented symbolic precue (Experiment 2). Results showed that the Simon effect was substantially reduced in both experiments when a valid precue preceded the imperative stimulus just in time to conclude refocusing of attention to the position of the imperative stimulus before it was presented. However, conditions with neutral precues yielded a normally sized Simon effect. In both experiments, the Simon effect decreased as the SOA grew when the precue was valid. At least for the Simon effect, the results can be interpreted as evidence that relative spatial coding is functionally related to the position of the focus of attention.     

Enhancement of the Simon effect by response precuing.

When stimuli are presented to the left or right of fixation, and stimulus location is irrelevant, responses are faster if the stimulus location coincides with the location of the assigned response. This phenomenon is called the Simon effect. The present study examined the influence on the Simon effect of attentional precues that signaled the likely stimulus location and intentional precues that signaled the likely response. Experiment 1 was a close procedural replication of an experiment by Verfaellie, Bowers, and Heilman (1988); consistent with their findings, the Simon effect was enhanced by the intentional precue and unaffected by the attentional precue. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated the importance of the intentional precue with simpler procedures that involved only intentional and attentional precues, respectively. Finally, the intentional precuing enhancement of the Simon effect was obtained when two stimuli were assigned to each response, regardless of whether the hands were uncrossed (experiment 4) or crossed (experiment 5). Overall, the results indicate that response precuing enhances the Simon effect and favor response-selection accounts over those that attribute the effect to stimulus identification.     

Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility

Summary The relative functional significance of attention shifts and attentional zooming for the coding of stimulus position in spatial compatibility tasks is demonstrated by proposing and testing experimentally a tentative explanation of the absence of a Simon effect in Experiment 3 of Umiltà and Liotti (1987). It is assumed that the neutral point of the spatial frame of reference for coding spatial position is at the position where attention is focussed immediately before exposition of the stimulus pattern. If a stimulus pattern is exposed to the right or the left of this position a spatial compatibility effect can be observed when the stimulus-response pairing is incompatible. Generalizing from this, one can say that a spatial compatibility effect will be observed if the last step in attentional focussing of the stimulus attribute specifying the response is a horizontal or a vertical attention shift. If the last step in focussing is attentional zooming (change in the representational level attended to), the stimulus pattern is localized at the horizontal and the vertical positions where the last attention shift had positioned the focus. In this case the spatial code is neutral on these dimensions and so no spatial compatibility effect should result. To test this model we conducted two experiments. Experiment 1 replicated the finding of Umiltà and Liotti that there is no Simon effect in the condition with no delay between a positional cue (two small boxes on the left or right of a fixation cross) and the imperative stimulus, whereas in the condition with a delay of 500 ms a Simon effect was observed. In a comparison condition with a single, rather large cue instead of two small boxes (forcing attention to zoom in), no Simon effect was observed under either delay condition. Experiment 2 used a spatial compatibility task proper with the same experimental conditions as Experiment 1. But in contrast to those of Experiment 1, the results show strong compatibility effects in all cue and delay conditions. The absence of a Simon effect in some experimental conditions in Experiment 1 and the presence of a spatial compatibility effect proper in all conditions in Experiment 2 are consistently accounted for with the proposed attentional explanation of spatial coding and spatial compatibility effects.     

Attention precuing and Simon effects: A test of the attention-coding account of the Simon effect

Simon effects refer to the finding that choice-response latencies to a nonspatial aspect of a stimulus vary depending on the spatial correspondence between the stimulus position and the position of the correct response alternative. Recently, researchers have proposed an attention-coding account of Simon effects whereby the (irrelevant) stimulus spatial code involved in the generation of the effect is formed in the process of attentional orienting to the stimulus. This account predicts that if attentional orienting is unnecessary at stimulus onset, as when the stimulus appears at an attended location, Simon effects will not be observed. This prediction was tested by measurement of Simon effects in an attention-precuing task in which the stimulus was presented at attended and unattended locations. Significant Simon effects were observed independently of the focus of attention. This result was obtained over a large range of precue-target SOAs, and did not depend on whether central or peripheral precues were used to direct attention or on whether the relevant target dimension was color or form. Significant Simon effects were not observed when the precue-target SOA was 50 ms, irrespective of the other precue and task conditions. The data do not support the prediction of the attention-coding account and thus question the generality of the account in its current form. It is suggested that spatial and temporal uncertainties are important factors that influence the pattern of results, and that these factors must be incorporated into attention-coding models of the Simon effect.     

基于客体的空间一致性效应:功能可见性或空间位置编码?

采用空间Simon任务范式,考察基于客体空间一致性效应到底是手柄的功能可见性引起,还是其空间位置编码导致。实验1采用Pellicano等(2010)研究中的带手柄电筒,要求被试完成与抓握功能相关的形状判断任务,结果表明,唯有当电筒开时,被试产生了基于客体的空间一致性效应。实验2去除电筒可抓握的手柄,发现无论电筒开或关,均出现了更大的基于客体空间一致性效应。上述结果与空间编码假说一致,表明空间位置编码是产生基于客体空间一致性效应的原因。     

The role of instructions,practice, and stimulus-hand correspondence on the Simon effect

Numerous studies of two-choice reaction tasks, including auditory and visual Simon tasks (i.e., tasks in which stimulus location is irrelevant) and visual compatibility tasks, have found that only spatial stimulus-response (S-R) correspondence affected S-R compatibility. Their results provided no indication that stimulus-hand correspondence was a significant factor. However, Wascher et al. (2001) suggested that hand coding plays a role in visual and auditory Simon tasks when the instructions are in terms of the finger/hand used for responding. The present experiments examined whether instructing subjects in terms of response locations or fingers/hands influenced the Simon effect for visual and auditory tasks. In Experiments 1-3, only spatial S-R correspondence contributed significantly to the Simon effect, even when the instructions were in terms of the fingers/hands. However, in Experiment 4, which used auditory stimuli and finger/hand instructions, the contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence increased with practice.     

Inverting the Simon effect by intention

Summary The Simon effect indicates that choice reactions can be performed more quickly if the response corresponds spatially to the stimulus - even when stimulus location is irrelevant to the task. Two experiments tested an intentional approach to the Simon effect that assigns a critical role to the cognitively represented action goal (i. e., the intended action effect). It was assumed that the direction of the Simon effect depends on stimulus-goal correspondence, that is, that responses are faster with spatial correspondence of stimulus and intended action effect. Experiment 1 confirmed that the direction of the Simon effect was determined by spatial correspondence of stimulus and intended action effect, the latter having been manipulated by different instructions. Experiment 2 indicated that effects of correspondences unrelated to the action goal (i. e., stimulus to hand location or to anatomical mapping of the hand), contributed additively to the resulting Simon effect. It is discussed how current approaches to the Simon effect can be elaborated to account for these results.     

S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding

Responses are faster with spatial S-R correspondence than with noncorrespondence (spatial compatibility effect), even if stimulus location is irrelevant (Simon effect). In two experiments, we sought to determine whether stimuli located above and below a fixation point are coded as left and right (and thus affect the selection of left and right responses) if the visual context suggests such a coding. So, stimuli appeared on the left or right eye of a face’s image that was tilted by 90° to one side or the other (Experiment 1) or varied between upright and 45° or 90° tilting (Experiment 2). Whether stimulus location was relevant (Experiment 1) or not (Experiment 2), responses were faster with correspondence of (face-based) stimulus location and (egocentrically defined) response location, even if stimulus and response locations varied on physically orthogonal dimensions. This suggests that object-based spatial stimulus codes are formed automatically and thus influence the speed of response selection.     

Environmentally defined frames of reference: their time course and sensitivity to spatial cues and attention

In a Simon task the effects of spatial cues and attention on spatial stimulus coding were explored. Participants made speeded responses corresponding to the direction of target arrows that were preceded by peripherally presented cues. Cue validity varied across experiments as did the percentage of trials on which the target appeared peripherally or centrally. The data indicate (a) that targets are coded relative to multiple reference frames, (b) that spatial coding of a target is not affected when attention is shifted to the target, and (c) that an object serves as a referent for spatial coding of other objects even after its spatial code no longer activates responses.     

Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks

Experiments by Umiltà and Liotti (1987) and Lamberts, Tavernier, & d'Ydewalle (1992) examined the Simon effect (an influence of irrelevant stimulus location on reaction time) as a function of multiple frames of reference. The Simon effect was absent for all reference frames in the former experiment, leading Stoffer (1991) to propose that a spatial code is formed only if the last step in directing attention to the imperative stimulus is a lateral shift. However, the Simon effect was evident for all frames in the latter experiment. Hommel (1994) proposed that the multiple spatial codes implied by Lamberts et al.'s findings were also activated in Umiltà and Liotti's experiment but had decayed by the time the relevant stimulus information had been identified. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 examined these accounts of attention shifting, multiple codes, and temporal overlap for variations of the Simon task in which the stimulus could occur in one of either eight or four possible stimulus locations. Three stimulus sets that differed in ease of discriminability were used in each experiment. Experiments 1 and 2 were replications and extensions of those of Lamberts et al. and Umiltá and Liotti, respectively. In both experiments, two boxes, with a stimulus inside of one, appeared simultaneously, and the subject was to respond to the identity of the stimulus. Experiment 3 used a procedure in which the four stimulus locations were demarcated by three vertical lines. Two of the three experiments showed Simon effects with respect to multiple frames of reference, and the magnitude of these effects was a decreasing function of the difficulty of stimulus discriminability. Spatial compatibility proper was examined in Experiment 4 using the same layout as Experiment 3. In this case, only the relevant frame of reference was coded. On the whole, the results indicate that multiple codes are formed, but not automatically, and that those codes decay when irrelevant.     

Influences of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect

When lateralized responses are made to the locations of vertically arrayed stimuli, two types of mapping effect have been reported: an overall up-right/down-left advantage and mapping preferences that vary with response position. According to Cho and Proctor's (2003) multiple asymmetric codes account, these orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects are due to the correspondence of stimulus polarity and response polarity, as determined by the positions relative to multiple frames of reference. The present study examined these two types of orthogonal compatibility for situations in which participants made left-right responses to the colours of a vertically arrayed stimulus set, and stimulus location was irrelevant. Although a significant orthogonal Simon effect was not evident when responding at a centred, neutral response position, the effect was modulated by response eccentricity (Experiment 2) and hand posture (Experiment 3). These effects are qualitatively similar to those obtained when stimulus location is task relevant. The results imply that, as Proctor and Cho's (2006) polarity correspondence principle suggests, the stimulus polarity code activates the response code of corresponding polarity even when stimulus location is irrelevant to the task.     

Modes of spatial coding in the Simon task*

Many models of the Simon effect assume that categorical spatial representations underlie the phenomenon. The present study tested this assumption explicitly in two experiments, both of which involved eight possible spatial positions of imperative stimuli arranged horizontally on the screen. In Experiment 1, the eight stimulus locations were marked with eight square boxes that appeared at the same time during a trial. Results showed gradually increasing Simon effects from the central locations to the outer locations. In Experiment 2, the eight stimulus locations consisted of a combination of three frames of spatial reference (hemispace, hemifield, and position relative to the fixation), with each frame appearing in different timings. In contrast to Experiment 1, results showed an oscillating pattern of the Simon effect across the horizontal positions. These findings are discussed in terms of grouping factors involved in the Simon task. The locations seem to be coded as a single continuous dimension when all are visible at once as in Experiment 1, but they are represented as a combination of the lateral categories (“left” vs. “right”) with multiple frames of reference when the reference frames are presented successively as in Experiment 2.     

Influences of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect

When lateralized responses are made to the locations of vertically arrayed stimuli, two types of mapping effect have been reported: an overall up–right/down–left advantage and mapping preferences that vary with response position. According to Cho and Proctor's (2003) multiple asymmetric codes account, these orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects are due to the correspondence of stimulus polarity and response polarity, as determined by the positions relative to multiple frames of reference. The present study examined these two types of orthogonal compatibility for situations in which participants made left–right responses to the colours of a vertically arrayed stimulus set, and stimulus location was irrelevant. Although a significant orthogonal Simon effect was not evident when responding at a centred, neutral response position, the effect was modulated by response eccentricity (Experiment 2) and hand posture (Experiment 3). These effects are qualitatively similar to those obtained when stimulus location is task relevant. The results imply that, as Proctor and Cho's (2006) polarity correspondence principle suggests, the stimulus polarity code activates the response code of corresponding polarity even when stimulus location is irrelevant to the task.     

Co-occurrence of sequential and practice effects in the Simon task: Evidence for two independent mechanisms affecting response selection

The Simon effect refers to the observation that responses to a relevant stimulus dimension are faster and more accurate when the stimulus and response spatially correspond than when they do not, even though stimulus position is irrelevant. Recent findings have suggested that the Simon effect can be strongly modulated by prior practice with a spatially incompatible mapping and by correspondence sequence. Although practice is thought to influence conditional stimulus —response (S-R) processing, leaving response priming through the unconditional route unaffected, sequential effects are thought to represent trial-by-trial adaptations that selectively involve unconditional S —R processing. In the present study, we tested this assumption by assessing the effects of correspondence sequence both when the Simon task alone was performed and when it was preceded by a spatial compatibility task with either incompatible (Experiments 1-2) or compatible (Experiment 2) instructions. The observation that practice and correspondence sequence co-occur and exert additive effects strongly demonstrates that the two factors affect different processing routes.     

Intrinsic array structure is neither necessary nor sufficient for nonegocentric coding of spatial layouts

Mou and McNamara (2002) have recently theorized that nonegocentric reference frames (viz., intrinsic reference frames, based on the spatial structure of a configuration of objects) are used to organize spatial relationships in memory. The theory has not made claims about whether the intrinsic structure of a stimulus array is necessary or sufficient for such nonegocentric coding. We demonstrate that salient intrinsic axes in a layout of objects are neither necessary nor sufficient for people to use a nonegocentric reference frame in organizing spatial memory. In Experiment 1, participants were successfully instructed to adopt a nonegocentric preferred direction in memory for an array of objects with no salient intrinsic reference axes. In Experiment 2, with no instructions, participants adopted an egocentric preferred direction for an array with a salient intrinsic axis. These results suggest that physically salient array structure exerts a minimal influence in the coding of spatial memory through nonegocentric reference frames.     

Global Dominance Outside the Focus of Attention

Identification of the local aspect of a relevant compound stimulus has been found to be delayed by the presence of target-set members at the global aspect of an irrelevant compound stimulus, whereas identification of the global aspect is unaffected by the presence of local target-set members within the irrelevant object (Paquet & Merikle, 1988). This effect has been termed the global category effect , and it suggests that global dominance occurs for objects located outside the attentional focus, as well as within an attended hierarchical object. In the present experiments, attention was directed to the relevant one of two compound stimuli by using either shape information (Experiments 1 and 2) or a 100-msec peripheral rapid onset precue (Experiment 3). Results revealed a global category effect even when the physical features of the displays containing global target-set members within the irrelevant object were closely matched with those of the control displays. Critically, the magnitude of the global category effect was affected by how well attention could be focused on the relevant compound stimulus. These findings suggest (a) that the analysis of global information for irrelevant objects is more elaborate than the simple detection of features; and (b) that both perceptual and attentional mechanisms are involved in global dominance.     

Mechanisms underlying spatial coding in a multiple-item Simon task

Choice responses are faster when target position and response side correspond than when they do not, even if target position is response-irrelevant. This "Simon effect" has also been observed in case of multi-item arrays. Generally, it is assumed that an automatically generated spatial response code is responsible for the effect. The referential-coding account assumes that this code is directly related to the target, although the moment of production of the code is not fully clear. The attention-shift account assumes that the code is directly related to the direction of the most recent attentional shift. An experiment was performed in which left or right target locations were indicated by arrows occurring before (precue), simultaneous with (simcue), or after (postcue) six-element arrays. Overt responses and EEG potentials were recorded. The Simon effect was present in all conditions, and decreased when responses were slower. No relation was found between amplitude of posterior lateralized components and the magnitude of the Simon effect. A posterior contralateral negativity was also found after presenting the arrays in the precue condition, which might reflect the reorienting of attention toward the target position. The results are more favorable to the referential-coding account although this account becomes very similar to the attention-shift hypothesis as the moment of formation of the spatial response code is related to effective target onset rather than to stimulus onset.     

Active inhibition of a distractor word: the distractor precue benefit in the Stroop color-naming task

The current study investigated attentional control through active inhibition of the identity of the distractor. Adapting a Stroop paradigm, the distractor word was presented in advance and made to disappear, followed by the presentation of a Stroop stimulus. Participants were instructed to inhibit the distractor in order to reduce its interference. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that the distractor precue facilitated Stroop color naming by reducing Stroop interference. Experiment 3 demonstrated beneficial effects of the distractor precue when congruent trials were introduced. Experiment 4 showed that the distractor precue benefit was observed when the cue and target were in different forms. Experiment 5 indicated that if the item used as the cue became the target, naming it took longer in order to overcome the inhibitory effect. Experiment 6 demonstrated that the benefit of the distractor precue was not observed when the cue was uninformative. Finally, Experiment 7 demonstrated that active inhibition required working-memory resources to operate. This study suggests that the best explanation for the distractor precue benefit is the active inhibition account.     

Flowers and spiders in spatial stimulus-response compatibility: does affective valence influence selection of task-sets or selection of responses?

The present study examined the effect of stimulus valence on two levels of selection in the cognitive system, selection of a task-set and selection of a response. In the first experiment, participants performed a spatial compatibility task (pressing left and right keys according to the locations of stimuli) in which stimulus-response mappings were determined by stimulus valence. There was a standard spatial stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect for positive stimuli (flowers) and a reversed SRC effect for negative stimuli (spiders), but the same data could be interpreted as showing faster responses when positive and negative stimuli were assigned to compatible and incompatible mappings, respectively, than when the assignment was opposite. Experiment 2 disentangled these interpretations, showing that valence did not influence a spatial SRC effect (Simon effect) when task-set retrieval was unnecessary. Experiments 3 and 4 replaced keypress responses with joystick deflections that afforded approach/avoidance action coding. Stimulus valence modulated the Simon effect (but did not reverse it) when the valence was task-relevant (Experiment 3) as well as when it was task-irrelevant (Experiment 4). Therefore, stimulus valence influences task-set selection and response selection, but the influence on the latter is limited to conditions where responses afford approach/avoidance action coding.     

Endogenous orienting modulates the Simon effect: critical factors in experimental design

Responses are faster when the side of stimulus and response correspond than when they do not correspond, even if stimulus location is irrelevant to the task at hand: the correspondence, spatial compatibility effect, or Simon effect. Generally, it is assumed that an automatically generated spatial code is responsible for this effect, but the precise mechanism underlying the formation of this code is still under dispute. Two major alternatives have been proposed: the referential-coding account, which can be subdivided into a static version and an attention-centered version, and the attention-shift account. These accounts hold clear-cut predictions for attentional cuing experiments. The former would assume a Simon effect irrespective of attentional cuing in its static version, whereas the attention-centered version of the referential-coding account and the attention-shift account would predict a decreased Simon effect on validly as opposed to invalid cued trials. However, results from previous studies are equivocal to the effects of attentional cuing on the Simon effect. We argue here that attentional cueing reliably modulates the Simon effect if some crucial experimental conditions, mostly relevant for optimizing attentional allocation, are met. Furthermore, we propose that the Simon effect may be better understood within the perspective of supra-modal spatial attention, thereby providing an explanation for observed discrepancies in the literature.