Auditory stimulus-response compatibility: Is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence?

 Simon, Hinrichs, and Craft found that when subjects responded to a tone in the left or right ear with a left or right keypress, both ear-response-location correspondence and ear-hand correspondence affected reaction time. This outcome is in contrast to results obtained for auditory and visual Simon tasks (i.e., tasks in which stimulus location is irrelevant) as well as results obtained in visual stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility studies, which show only an effect of spatial S-R correspondence. Experiment 1 was a replication of Simon et al.'s experiment in which spatial mapping and hand placement (uncrossed, crossed) were varied. The results were inconsistent with those of Simon et al., showing no ear-hand compatibility effect. Experiment 2 was a second replication with an additional condition examined in which the stimuli were visual locations. The results showed no contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence for either auditory or visual stimuli. Experiment 3 was a replication of another experiment by Simon et al. in which tone pitch was relevant and tone location irrelevant. Like Simon et al.'s data, our results showed no indication that stimulus-hand correspondence is a significant factor. Overall, our results imply that regardless of whether tone location is relevant or irrelevant, ear-response-location correspondence is the only factor that contributes to S-R compatibility in auditory two-choice reaction tasks. Received: 15 March 1999 / Accepted: 8 June 1999     

Stimulus-response compatibility for absolute and relative spatial correspondence in reaching and in button pressing

Three experiments tested whether stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility might be a function of absolute (as opposed to relative) spatial correspondence-that is, the distance between a stimulus and the place of response. Experiment 1 studied reaching movements toward one of two targets in response to one of six visual stimuli. Stimulus-response pairs that shared relative position were faster than those that did not, and reaction time was faster when the stimulus and one of the potential targets were in close proximity. In Experiment 2 the same effects were found when the hands started from a different position, implicating stimulus target distance, rather than stimulus-hand distance as the critical variable. Experiment 3 employed keypress responses instead of reaches, and the distance effect was nearly absent. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of categorical (e.g. left-right) vs. quantitative (e.g. distance) S-R variables in spatial compatibility.     

The Lateral Coding of Rotations

A number of experimental studies have consistently shown the locus of spatial S-R compatibility effects to be the selection of the response within an abstract memory code. The purpose of the present study was to test, in the particular case of wheel rotations, the general proposition that any response that a subject internally codes in terms of left and right may be interfered with by the lateral location of the stimuli in a Simon paradigm. Experiment 1 showed that the auditory Simon effect occurred in a task where the subjects had to rotate a steering wheel bimanually either clockwise or counterclockwise according to sound pitch, despite the fact that responses of this kind are undefined with respect to laterality. Experiment 2 confirmed this result in a unimanual rotation condition and suggested that the ear-rotation compatibility effect may be added to the effect of a biomechanical factor, pronation versus supination, supporting the idea of an abstract motor code. In Experiment 3, subjects rotated the steering wheel with their hands on the lowest part of the wheel. When the response movement made the spot of a C.R.T. move laterally in accordance with the performed rotation, the subjects coded their response directly in terms of its effect on the visual display. For subjects not receiving visual feedback, no compatibility effect occurred. However, the individual data were compatible with the notion that some subjects in this group coded their responses in terms of wheel rotations, and others in terms of hand movements.     

Transfer of orthogonal stimulus-response mappings to an orthogonal Simon task

When up-down stimulus locations are mapped to left-right keypresses, an overall advantage for the up-right/down-left mapping is often obtained that varies as a function of response eccentricity. This orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect also occurs when stimulus location is irrelevant, a phenomenon called the orthogonal Simon effect, and has been attributed to correspondence of stimulus and response code polarities. The Simon effect for horizontal stimulus-response (S-R) arrangements has been shown to be affected by short-term S-R associations established through the mapping used for a prior SRC task in which stimulus location was relevant. We examined whether such associations also transfer between orthogonal SRC and Simon tasks and whether correspondence of code polarities continues to contribute to performance in the Simon task. In Experiment 1, the orthogonal Simon effect was larger after practising with an up-right/down-left mapping of visual stimuli to responses than with the alternative mapping, for which the orthogonal Simon effect tended to reverse. Experiment 2 showed similar results when practice was with high (up) and low (down) pitch tones, though the influence of practice mapping was not as large as that in Experiment 1, implying that the short-term S-R associations acquired in practice are at least in part not modality specific. In Experiment 3, response eccentricity and practice mapping were shown to have separate influences on the orthogonal Simon effect, as expected if both code polarity and acquired S-R associations contribute to performance.     

Attention,instruction, and response representation

A two-dimensional Simon-type task was devised to investigate the impact of task requirements and explicit instructions on spatial action coding. Subjects performed actions that were defined on two spatial dimensions: horizontal (left-right) or vertical (top-bottom). The relevant stimulus feature was nonspatial but the stimuli varied on the horizontal and the vertical dimension, so that horizontal and vertical S-R compatibility effects could be measured separately. Implicit task requirements were manipulated by having the subjects perform an unrelated task before the Simon task—a task in which only one of the two spatial dimensions was relevant. Instructions were varied by describing the responses in the unrelated priming task and/or in the Simon task in spatial terms or by referring to nonspatial features of the response keys. Priming a particular dimension increased the Simon effect on that dimension, whereas instructions had no differential effect. These findings suggest that, first, drawing attention to a particular dimension leads to a stronger contribution to event representation of those features defined on that dimension (intentional weighting) and, second, that instructions do not affect action coding if the manipulation does not change the task goal.     

Stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility: Two variables disentangled in an auditory reaction time task

Abstract

Stimulus—response (S-R) compatibility was a tem fmt used by Wtts and Seeger (1953) to describe effcts observed on reaction time (RT) when the stimulus—response relationship was varied, as in the following instructions: “move to tbe right when the stimulus appears on the right” (compatible) or “move to the left when the stimulus appears on the right” (incompatible). This term was later employed in a broader sense (Simon & Rudell, 1967) with paradigms involving elaborate stimuli, such as the verbal command ‘RIGHT’ delivered to the right tar (compatible) or to the left ear (incompatible). In such paradigms. subjects respond faster when the response is delivered on the same side as the stimulus (the so-called “Simon effect”). It has been shown, however, that this effect could be reversed under some circumstanas in the visual domain. In this paper, we report data showing that it can also be reversed in the auditory domain when using the above-mentioned verbal commands. This brings further evidence that stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect difier in essence, with the latter effect reflecting the influence of stimulus congruence, the correspondence relationship borne by the two simultaneous characteristics of the stimulus. Stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility had indeed independent influences on RT, which in a serially connected information-processing modcl would imply that they act upon independent stages.     

Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task.

Three experiments were conducted to determine whether spatial stimulus-response compatibility effects are caused by automatic response activation by stimulus properties or by interference between codes during translation of stimulus into response coordinates. The main evidence against activation has been that in a Simon task with hands crossed, responses are faster at the response location ipsilateral to the stimulus though manipulated by the hand contralateral to the stimulus. The experiments were conducted with hands in standard and in crossed positions and electroencephalogram measures showed coactivation of the motor cortex induced by stimulus position primarily during standard hand positions with visual stimuli. Only in this condition did the Simon effect decay with longer response times. The visual Simon effect appeared to be due to specific mechanisms of visuomotor information transmission that are not responsible for the effects obtained with crossed hands or auditory stimuli.     

Anticipatory response control in motor sequence learning: evidence from stimulus-response compatibility

Three experiments using a serial four-choice reaction-time (RT) task explored the interaction of sequence learning and stimulus-based response conflict. In Experiment 1, the spatial stimulus-response (S-R) mapping was manipulated between participants. Incompatible S-R mappings produced much higher RTs than the compatible mapping, but sequence learning decreased this S-R compatibility effect. In Experiment 2, the spatial stimulus feature was made task-irrelevant by assigning responses to symbols that were presented at unpredictable locations. The data indicated a Simon effect (i.e., increased RT when irrelevant stimulus location is spatially incompatible with response location) that was reduced by sequence learning. However, this effect was observed only in participants who developed an explicit sequence representation. Experiment 3 replicated this learning-based modulation of the Simon effect using explicit sequence-learning instructions. Taken together, the data support the notion that explicit sequence learning can lead to motor 'chunking', so that pre-planned response sequences are shielded from conflicting stimulus information.     

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.     

Preliminary evidence for body-centered coding of tactile motor events

A number of experimental studies have consistently shown that on reaction time tasks with visual or auditory stimuli, the subjects code their responses in environmental rather than body-centered terms. The aim of the present study was to determine which of these two frames of reference subjects spontaneously adopt to code tactile motor events. Eight subjects were requested to respond with key-presses to mechanical stimulations delivered under the finger tips. Reaction time was analysed as a function of device- and body-centered S-R relationships. Subjects displayed a strong S-R compatibility effect that suggested their body-centered coding of tactile motor events.     

The lateral coding of rotations: a study of the simon effect with wheel-rotation responses

A number of experimental studies have consistently shown the locus of spatial S-R compatibility effects to be the selection of the response within an abstract memory code. The purpose of the present study was to test, in the particular case of wheel rotations, the general proposition that any response that a subject internally codes in terms of left and right may be interfered with by the lateral location of the stimuli in a Simon paradigm. Experiment 1 showed that the auditory Simon effect occurred in a task where the subjects had to rotate a steering wheel bimanually either clockwise or counterclockwise according to sound pitch, despite the fact that responses of this kind are undefined with respect to laterality. Experiment 2 confirmed this result in a unimanual rotation condition and suggested that the ear-rotation compatibility effect may be added to the effect of a biomechanical factor, pronation versus supination, supporting the idea of an abstraction motor code. In Experiment 3, subjects rotated the steering wheel with their hands on the lowest part of the wheel. When the response movement made the spot of a C.R.T. move laterally in accordance with the performed rotation, the subjects coded their response directly in terms of its effect on the visual display. For subjects not receiving visual feedback, no compatibility effect occurred. however, the individual data were compatible with the notion that some subjects in this group coded their responses in terms of wheel rotations, and others in terms of hand movements.     

Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: toward a conceptual clarification.

The current view that the Simon effect (Simon & Small, 1969) reflects stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) is questioned. Previous accounts of the Simon effect have overlooked stimulus congruity (SC), the correspondence relation borne by the two simultaneous aspects of the stimulus, a factor inevitably confounded in the Simon paradigm with irrelevant spatial S-R correspondence. The Hedge and Marsh (1975) reversal effect, replicated in Experiment 1, is reinterpreted as decisive evidence that the Simon effect is entirely accounted for by SC. Furthermore, in Experiment 2 irrelevant S-R correspondence was manipulated in the absence of any variation of SC, and the Simon effect vanished. It is concluded that the Simon effect, contrary to current opinion, represents a spatial variant of the Stroop effect and is irrelevant to the SRC issue. The view that mental operations proceed automatically at the stage of response determination loses one of its strongest empirical arguments.     

Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities

In recent years research on automatic imitation has received considerable attention because it represents an experimental platform for investigating a number of interrelated theories suggesting that the perception of action automatically activates corresponding motor programs. A key debate within this research centers on whether automatic imitation is any different than other long-term S-R associations, such as spatial stimulus-response compatibility. One approach to resolving this issue is to examine whether automatic imitation shows similar response characteristics as other classes of stimulus-response compatibility. This hypothesis was tested by comparing imitative and spatial compatibility effects with a two alternative forced-choice stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. The stimulus on each trial was a left or right hand with either the index or middle finger tapping down. Speeded responses were performed with the index or middle finger of the right hand in response to the identity or the left-right spatial position of the stimulus finger. Two different tasks were administered: one that involved responding to the stimulus (S-R) and one that involved responding to the opposite stimulus (OS-R; i.e., the one not presented on that trial). Based on previous research and a connectionist model, we predicted standard compatibility effects for both spatial and imitative compatibility in the S-R task, and a reverse compatibility effect for spatial compatibility, but not for imitative compatibility, in the OS-R task. The results from the mean response times, mean percentage of errors, and response time distributions all converged to support these predictions. A second noteworthy result was that the recoding of the finger identity in the OS-R task required significantly more time than the recoding of the left-right spatial position, but the encoding time for the two stimuli in the S-R task was equivalent. In sum, this evidence suggests that the processing of spatial and imitative compatibility is dissociable with regard to two different processes in dual processing models of stimulus-response compatibility.     

Shared learning shapes human performance: Transfer effects in task sharing

We investigated whether performing a task with a co-actor shapes the way a subsequent task is performed. In four experiments participants were administered a Simon task after practicing a spatial compatibility task with an incompatible S-R mapping. In Experiment 1 they performed both tasks alongside another person; in Experiment 2 they performed the spatial compatibility task alone, responding to only one stimulus position, and the Simon task with another person; in Experiment 3, they performed the spatial compatibility task with another person and the Simon task alone; finally, in Experiment 4, they performed the spatial compatibility task alone and the Simon task with another person. The incompatible practice eliminated the Simon effect in Experiments 1 and 4. These results indicate that when a task is distributed between two participants with each one performing a different part of it, they tend to represent the whole task rather than their own part of it. This experience can influence the way a subsequent task is performed, as long as this latter occurs in a social context.     

A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task

Recent studies have shown that the effects of irrelevant spatial stimulus-response (S-R) correspondence (i.e., the Simon effect) occur only after trials in which the stimulus and response locations corresponded. This has been attributed to the gating of irrelevant information or the suppression of an automatic S-R route after experiencing a noncorresponding trial—a challenge to the widespread assumption of direct, intentionally unmediated links between spatial stimulus and response codes. However, trial sequences in a Simon task are likely to produce effects of stimulus- and response-feature integration that may mimic the sequential dependencies of Simon effects. Four experiments confirmed that Simon effects are eliminated if the preceding trial involved a noncorresponding S-R pair. However, this was true even when the preceding response did not depend on the preceding stimulus or if the preceding trial required no response at all. These findings rule out gating/suppression accounts that attribute sequential dependencies to response selection difficulties. Moreover, they are consistent with a feature-integration approach and demonstrate that accounting for the sequential dependencies of Simon effects does not require the assumption of information gating or response suppression.     

Integration of hand and finger location in external spatial coordinates for tactile localization

Tactile stimulus location is automatically transformed from somatotopic into external spatial coordinates, rendering information about the location of touch in three-dimensional space. This process is referred to as tactile remapping. Whereas remapping seems to occur automatically for the hands and feet, the fingers may constitute an exception in that some studies have implied purely somatotopic coding of touch to the fingers. When participants judge the order of two tactile stimuli, they often err when the stimulated body parts (usually the two hands) are crossed, presumably because somatotopic and external coordinates are in conflict in crossed postures. Using this task, we investigated, first, whether the fingers are unlike other limbs with regard to spatial coding, by testing whether crossing effects, indicative of external coding, were observable when stimulating two fingers, either on the same or on different hands. Second, we investigated the interaction of hand and finger posture in tactile localization of finger stimuli. Crossing effects emerged when fingers and hands were crossed, suggesting external coding for all body parts. Crossing effects were larger when both hand and finger were located in the hemifield opposite to their body side, and smaller when only hand or finger lay in the opposite hemifield. We suggest that tactile location is estimated by integrating the external location of all relevant body parts, here of a finger and its belonging hand, and that such integrative coding may represent a general principle for body part processing as well as for tool use.     

Stimulus–response compatibility for mixed mappings and tasks with unique responses

For two stimulus locations mapped to two keypresses, reaction time is shorter when the mapping is compatible than when it is not (the stimulus–response compatibility, SRC, effect). A similar result, called the Simon effect, occurs when stimulus location is irrelevant, and colour is relevant. When compatibly mapped trials are intermixed with incompatibly mapped trials or Simon task trials, the compatibility effect is eliminated, and the Simon effect is influenced by the location mapping. In five experiments, we examined whether similar mixing effects occur when the two spatial mappings or location-relevant and location-irrelevant tasks use distinct keypresses on the left and right hands. Mixing had considerably less influence on the SRC and Simon effects than it does when the intermixed trial types or tasks share the same responses, even though response time was lengthened to a similar extent. Mixing two tasks for which stimulus location was irrelevant yielded no within-task Simon effect, but the effect was also absent when four stimuli were assigned to two responses on a single hand. The relative lack of influence of mixing on the SRC and Simon effects when the tasks have unique responses implies that suppression of direct activation of the corresponding response occurs primarily when the tasks share responses.     

Spatial S-R compatibility with orthogonal stimulus-response relationship

Spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility with unimanual two-finger choice reactions was investigated under conditions in which the spatial orientation of response keys was either parallel to or perpendicular to the orientation of the stimuli. Subjects responded to green or red lights in the left or right visual field (irrelevant stimulus location). The response keys were oriented horizontally on the left or right side of the body midline parallel to the stimuli, and were pressed with the palms facing down (Condition A), or were oriented orthogonally to the stimuli in the midsaggital plane, either horizontally and pressed with palms facing down (B) or facing up (C), or vertically and pressed with palms facing the body (D). The results for Condition A demonstrate the usual spatial S-R compatibility effect between field of stimulation and spatial position of responding finger. For Conditions B and D, a strong reaction time advantage still obtained for those stimulus-finger pairings that are compatible under Condition A. Condition C revealed an RT advantage for the opposite pairings. This shift of the compatibility effect from Condition B to Condition C indicates that the left/right distinction of fingers does not follow a simple, fixed spatio-anatomical mapping rule. The results are discussed within the framework of a hierarchical model of spatial S-R compatibility, with spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping as factors.     

Common pathways in mental imagery and pain perception: an fMRI study of a subject with an amputated arm

The present paper reviews data from two previous studies in our laboratory, as well as some additional new data, on the neuronal representation of movement and pain imagery in a subject with an amputated right arm. The subject imagined painful and non-painful finger movements in the amputated stump while being in a MRI scanner, acquiring EPI-images for fMRI analysis. In Study I (Ersland et al., 1996) the Subject alternated tapping with his intact left hand fingers and imagining "tapping" with the fingers of his amputated right arm. The results showed increased neuronal activation in the right motor cortex (precentral gyrus) when tapping with the fingers of the left hand, and a corresponding activation in the left motor cortex when imagining tapping with the fingers of the amputated right arm. Finger tappings of the intact left hand fingers also resulted in a larger activated precentral area than imagery "finger tapping" of the amputated right arm fingers. In Study II (Rosen et al., 2001 in press) the same subject imagining painful and pleasurable finger movements, and still positions of the fingers of the amputated arm. The results showed larger activations over the motor cortex for movement imagining versus imagining the hand being in a still position, and larger activations over the sensory cortex when imagining painful experiences. It can therefore be concluded that not only does imagery activate the same motor areas as real finger movements, but also that adding instructions of pain together with imaging moving the fingers intensified the activation compared with adding instructions about non-painful experiences. From these studies, it is clear that areas activated during actual motor execution to a large extent also are activated during mental imagery of the same motor commands. In this respect the present studies add to studies of visual imagery that have shown a similar correspondence in activation between actual object perception and imagery of the same object.     

Between-task transfer of learning from spatial compatibility to a color stroop task

Responses to a relevant stimulus dimension are faster and more accurate when the stimulus and response spatially correspond compared to when they do not, even though stimulus position is irrelevant (Simon effect). It has been demonstrated that practicing with an incompatible spatial stimulus-response (S-R) mapping before performing a Simon task can eliminate this effect. In the present study we assessed whether a learned spatially incompatible S-R mapping can be transferred to a nonspatial conflict task, hence supporting the view that transfer effects are due to acquisition of a general "respond to the opposite stimulus value" rule. To this aim, we ran two experiments in which participants performed a spatial compatibility task with either a compatible or an incompatible mapping and then transferred, after a 5 min delay, to a color Stroop task. In Experiment 1, responses were executed by pressing one of two keys on the keyboard in both practice and transfer tasks. In Experiment 2, responses were manual in the practice task and vocal in the transfer task. The spatially incompatible practice significantly reduced the color Stroop effect only when responses were manual in both tasks. These results suggest that during practice participants develop a response-selection strategy of emitting the alternative spatial response.