The size of the Simon effect depends on the nature of the relevant task

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 202-214

  Lammertyn, Jan ^a   Notebaert, Wim ^a   Gevers, Wim ^a   Fias, Wim ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Dimensional overlap; Neural overlap; Simon effect

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NERVE CELL NETWORK; PSYCHOLOGY; REACTION TIME; STATISTICS; VISION;

ADULT; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; HUMANS; MALE; NERVE NET; PSYCHOLOGY; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 34547313621     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.54.3.202     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Burle, B., Possamai, C.-A., Vidal, F., Bonnet, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2002). Executive control in the Simon effect: An electromyographic and distributional analysis. Psychological Research, 66, 324-336.
2. Caessens, B., Notebaert, W., Burle, B., & Soetens, E. (2005). Voluntary and involuntary control over automatic processing in spatial congruency tasks: Editors' introduction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 577-590.
3. Chao, L.L., & Martin, A. (1999). Cortical regions associated with perceiving, naming, and knowing about colors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(1), 25-35.
4. Cho, Y.S., & Proctor, R.W. (2004). Influences of multiple spatial stimulus and response codes on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility. Perception and Psychophysics, 66, 1003-1017.
5. Cho, Y.S., & Proctor, R.W. (2005). Representing response position relative to display location: Influence on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 839-864.
6. Cohen Kadosh, R., & Henik, A. (2006). A common representation for semantic and physical properties: A cognitive-anatomical approach. Experimental Psychology, 53, 87-943.
7. Cooper, L. (1975). Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 20-43.
8. Dehaene, S., & Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 314-326.
9. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396.
10. 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, 731-750.
11. Faillenot, I., Sunaert, S., Van Hecke, P., & Orban, G.A. (2001). Orientation discrimination of objects and gratings compared: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 585-596.
12. Fias, W., Dupont, P., Reynvoet, B., & Orban, G.A. (2002). The quantitative nature of a visual task differentiates between ventral and dorsal stream. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 646-658.
13. Fias, W., Lammertyn, J., Reynvoet, B., Dupont, P., & Orban, G.A. (2003). Parietal representation of symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 47-56.
14. Fias, W., Lauwereyns, J., & Lammertyn, J. (2001). Irrelevant digits affect feature-based attention depending on the overlap of neural circuits. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 415-423.
15. Fias, W., Reynvoet, B., & Brysbaert, M. (2001). Are Arabic numerals processed as pictures in a Stroop interference task? Psychological Research, 65(4), 242-249.
16. Fitts, P.M., & Seeger, C.M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
17. Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280-290.
18. Koechlin, E., Naccache, L., Block, E., & Dehaene, S. (1999). Primed numbers: Exploring the modularity of numerical representations with masked and unmasked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1882-1905.
19. Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroopand Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56, 130-135.
20. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
21. Lammertyn, J., Fias, W., & Lauwereyns, J. (2002). Semantic influences on feature-based attention due to overlap of neural circuits. Cortex, 38, 878-882.
22. Milner, A.D., & Goodale, M.A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Naccache, L., & Dehaene, S. (2001). Unconscious semantic priming extends to novel unseen stimuli. Cognition, 80, 215-229.
24. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2006). Orthogonal S-R compatibility effect emerges even when the stimulus position is taskirrelevant. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 59(6), 1021-1032.
25. Pesenti, M., Thioux, M., Seron, X., & De Volder, A. (2000). Neuroanatomical substrates of Arabic number processing, numerical comparison, and simple addition: A PET study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 461-479.
26. Pinel, P., Piazza, M., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron, 41, 983-993.
27. Proctor, R.W., & Cho, Y.S. (2003). Effects of response eccentricity and relative position on orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility with joystick and keypress responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 309-327.
28. Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446-461.
29. Ridderinkhof, K.R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analysis. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), "Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action" (pp.494-519). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. Simon, J.R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R.W. Proctor & T.G. Reeve (Eds.), "Advances in psychology, vol. 65: Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective" (pp. 31-86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
31. Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 280-286.
32. Tanaka, K. (1996). Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19, 109-139.
33. Ungerleider, L.G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D.J. Ingle, M.E. Goodale, & R. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior (pp. 549-586). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Van Opstal, F., Moors, A., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (in press). Offline and online number comparison. Psychological Research.
35. Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendock, A. (2004). The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task. Acta Psychologica 116, 21-37.
36. Weeks, D.J., & Proctor, R.W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355-366.
37. Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2005). Dynamic aspects of stimulus-response correspondence: Evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 453-464.
38. Zeki, S. (1993). A vision of the brain. London: Blackwell Science, London.