» Articles » PMID: 30555364

Sharing Different Reference Frames: How Stimulus Setup and Task Setup Shape Egocentric and Allocentric Simon Effects

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2018 Dec 18
PMID 30555364
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Different reference frames are used in daily life in order to structure the environment. The two-choice Simon task setting has been used to investigate how task-irrelevant spatial information influences human cognitive control. In recent studies, a Go/NoGo Simon task setting was used in order to divide the Simon task between a pair of participants. Yet, not only a human co-actor, but also even an attention-grabbing object can provide sufficient reference in order to reintroduce a Simon effect (SE) indicating cognitive conflict in Go/NoGo task settings. Interestingly, the SE could only occur when a reference point outside of the stimulus setup was available. The current studies exploited the dependency between different spatial reference frames (egocentric and allocentric) offered by the stimulus setup itself and the task setup (individual vs. joint Go/NoGot task setting). Two studies (Experiments 1 and 2) were carried out along with a human co-actor. Experiment 3 used an attention-grabbing object instead. The egocentric and allocentric SEs triggered by different features of the stimulus setup (global vs. local) were modulated by the task setup. When interacting with a human co-actor, an egocentric SE was found for global features of the stimulus setup (i.e., stimulus position on the screen). In contrast, an allocentric SE was yielded in the individual task setup illustrating the relevance of more local features of the stimulus setup (i.e., the manikin's ball position). Results point toward salience shifts between different spatial reference frames depending on the nature of the task setup.

Citing Articles

What Simon "knows" about cultural differences: The influence of cultural orientation and traffic directionality on spatial compatibility effects.

Baess P, Ecker U, Janssen S, Jin Z, Bermeitinger C Mem Cognit. 2022; 51(3):526-542.

PMID: 36180770 PMC: 9992257. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-022-01360-9.


Spatial-numerical associations in the presence of an avatar.

Boffel C, Herbst C, Lindemann O, Musseler J Psychol Res. 2020; 85(7):2588-2598.

PMID: 33026539 PMC: 8440310. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-020-01424-y.

References
1.
Shiu L, Kornblum S . Stimulus-response compatibility effects in go-no-go tasks: a dimensional overlap account. Percept Psychophys. 1999; 61(8):1613-23. DOI: 10.3758/bf03213122. View

2.
Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W . Representing others' actions: just like one's own?. Cognition. 2003; 88(3):B11-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00043-x. View

3.
Ansorge U, Wiihr P . A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004; 30(2):365-77. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365. View

4.
Lamberts K, Tavernier G, dYdewalle G . Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1992; 79(2):115-30. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(92)90028-c. View

5.
Rubichi S, Vu K, Nicoletti R, Proctor R . Spatial coding in two dimensions. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(2):201-16. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193832. View