Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect

Recent findings suggest that a Simon effect (SE) can be induced in Individual go/nogo tasks when responding next to an event-producing object salient enough to provide a reference for the spatial coding of one’s own action. However, there is skepticism against referential coding for the joint Simon effect (JSE) by proponents of task co-representation. In the present study, we tested assumptions of task co-representation and referential coding by introducing unexpected double response events in a joint go/nogo and a joint independent go/nogo task. In Experiment 1b, we tested if task representations are functionally similar in joint and standard Simon tasks. In Experiment 2, we tested sequential updating of task co-representation after unexpected single response events in the joint independent go/nogo task. Results showed increased JSEs following unexpected events in the joint go/nogo and joint independent go/nogo task (Experiment 1a). While the former finding is in line with the assumptions made by both accounts (task co-representation and referential coding), the latter finding supports referential coding. In contrast to Experiment 1a, we found a decreased SE after unexpected events in the standard Simon task (Experiment 1b), providing evidence against the functional equivalence assumption between joint and two-choice Simon tasks of the task co-representation account. Finally, we found an increased JSE also following unexpected single response events (Experiment 2), ruling out that the findings of the joint independent go/nogo task in Experiment 1a were due to a re-conceptualization of the task situation. In conclusion, our findings support referential coding also for the joint Simon effect.

[1]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  The Virtual Co-Actor: The Social Simon Effect does not Rely on Online Feedback from the Other , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[2]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  How two share two tasks: evidence of a social psychological refractory period effect , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Response inhibition in conflict tasks is revealed in delta plots , 2004 .

[5]  R. Proctor,et al.  The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  B Hommel,et al.  The role of attention for the Simon effect , 1993, Psychological research.

[7]  C. Umilta,et al.  Simon effect with and without awareness of the accessory stimulus. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Wim Fias,et al.  Post-error slowing: An orienting account , 2009, Cognition.

[9]  H. Möller,et al.  Action blind: Disturbed self-other integration in schizophrenia , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  Barbara C. N. Müller,et al.  When triangles become human: Action co-representation for objects , 2015 .

[11]  Michael E J Masson,et al.  A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[12]  M. Lappe,et al.  Specifying social cognitive processes with a social dual-task paradigm , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[13]  C. Umilta,et al.  Splitting visual space with attention. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  E. Schröger,et al.  Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: a new distraction paradigm. , 1998, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[15]  Wim Fias,et al.  Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support , 2010, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[16]  B. Hommel.  The Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 1996 , 49a (3) , 546 571 , 2022 .

[17]  E. Wagenmakers.  A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Social Neuroscience Action Co-representation: the Joint Snarc Effect Action Co-representation: the Joint Snarc Effect , 2022 .

[19]  W. Prinz,et al.  Representing others' actions: just like one's own? , 2003, Cognition.

[20]  The joint flanker effect: Less social than previously thought , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Francisco Barceló,et al.  Task Switching and Novelty Processing Activate a Common Neural Network for Cognitive Control , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[22]  Jan Derrfuss,et al.  Your Conflict Matters to Me! Behavioral and Neural Manifestations of Control Adjustment After Self-Experienced and Observed Decision-Conflict , 2009, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[23]  Matthew Ray,et al.  Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? , 2007, Human movement science.

[24]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Distraction effects in vision: behavioral and event-related potential indices , 2004, Neuroreport.

[25]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  What is Shared in Joint Action? Issues of Co-representation, Response Conflict, and Agent Identification , 2011 .

[26]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[27]  Armin Stock,et al.  A short history of ideo-motor action , 2004, Psychological research.

[28]  W. Notebaert,et al.  Conflict and error adaptation in the Simon task. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[29]  Erich Schrger,et al.  A Neural Mechanism for Involuntary Attention Shifts to Changes in Auditory Stimulation , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  Elena Rusconi,et al.  Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task , 2010, Cognition.

[31]  W. James,et al.  The Principles of Psychology. , 1983 .

[32]  Markus Lappe,et al.  Running head : Humanoid robots become human-like partners When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners : co-representation of robotic actions , 2012 .

[33]  W. Prinz,et al.  How two share a task: corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. , 2001, Psychological review.

[35]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect , 2013, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[36]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Auditory distraction: event-related potential and behavioral indices , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[37]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  Günther Knoblich,et al.  The joint flanker effect: sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[39]  K. C. Klauer,et al.  Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects , 2012, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[40]  Richard Ridderinkhof.  Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: activation and suppression in conflict tasks , 2002, Psychological research.

[41]  B. Hommel,et al.  Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control , 2012, Psychological research.

[42]  Wen-Jui Kuo,et al.  A common coding framework in self–other interaction: evidence from joint action task , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[43]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[44]  P. Andrés,et al.  The involuntary capture of attention by sound: novelty and postnovelty distraction in young and older adults. , 2010, Experimental psychology.

[45]  Marcel Brass,et al.  When Pinocchio acts like a human, a wooden hand becomes embodied. Action co-representation for non-biological agents , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[46]  Barbara C. N. Müller,et al.  Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members’ actions , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[47]  J. R. Simon.  The Effects of an Irrelevant Directional CUE on Human Information Processing , 1990 .

[48]  F. Barceló,et al.  Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change , 2011, Cognition.

[49]  U. Ansorge,et al.  A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[50]  B. Hommel.  The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[51]  A. Raftery.  Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

[52]  M. Posner.  The Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention , 2020 .

[53]  S. Kornblum,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility effects in go-no-go tasks: A dimensional overlap account , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[54]  B. Hommel.  Spontaneous decay of response-code activation , 1994, Psychological research.

[55]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Observed and self-experienced conflict induce similar behavioral and neural adaptation , 2012, Social neuroscience.

[56]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[57]  Dorit Wenke,et al.  Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the Social Simon paradigm , 2013, Psychological research.

[58]  Wen-Jui Kuo,et al.  Action Co-representation is Tuned to Other Humans , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[59]  E. Schröger,et al.  Bottom-up influences on working memory: behavioral and electrophysiological distraction varies with distractor strength. , 2004, Experimental psychology.

[60]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  How “Social” is the social Simon effect? , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[61]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  How Social Are Task Representations? , 2009, Psychological science.

[62]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Increasing self–other integration through divergent thinking , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[63]  B. Hommel.  The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap , 1993 .

[64]  T. Welsh,et al.  Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[65]  H. Spencer.  The Principles of Psychology - Vol. I , 2016 .

[66]  Henk Aarts,et al.  When competition merges people's behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations , 2010 .

[67]  R. Nicoletti,et al.  The role of group membership on the modulation of joint action , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[68]  W. Prinz,et al.  Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task , 2011, Psychological research.

[69]  S. Berti.  Cognitive control after distraction: event-related brain potentials (ERPs) dissociate between different processes of attentional allocation. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[70]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. , 1967, The Journal of applied psychology.