Modality-Switching in the Simon Task: The Clash of Reference Frames

The representation of spatial information related to an event can influence behavior even when location is task-irrelevant, as in the case of Stimulus–Response (S-R) compatibility effects on the Simon task. However, unlike single-modality situations, which are often used to study the Simon effect, in real-life scenarios various sensory modalities provide spatial information coded in different coordinate systems. Here, we address the expression of S-R compatibility effects in mixed-modality contexts, where events can occur in 1 of various sensory modalities (i.e., vision, touch or audition). The results confirm that, in single-modality cases, Simon effects in vision are expressed in an external spatial frame of reference, while touch information is coded anatomically. Remarkably, when mixing visual and tactile trials in an unpredictable way, the Simon effect disappeared in vision whereas tactile Simon effects remained expressed in their own (anatomical) frame of reference. Mixing visual and auditory stimuli did not obliterate the visual Simon effect and S-R compatibility effects in an external reference frame were evident for both modalities. The extinction of visual Simon effects as a result of mixing visual and tactile modalities can be interpreted as a consequence of the dynamic reorganization of the weights associated to the different sources of spatial information at play.

[1]  A. Engel,et al.  Tactile remapping: from coordinate transformation to integration in sensorimotor processing , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  M. Hollins,et al.  Perceived intensity of vibrotactile stimuli: the role of mechanoreceptive channels. , 1996, Somatosensory & motor research.

[3]  S. Klapp,et al.  Anatomic and environmental dimensions of stimulus-response compatibility: implication for theories of memory coding. , 1979, Acta psychologica.

[4]  G. d'Ydewalle,et al.  Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. , 1992, Acta psychologica.

[5]  Peter König,et al.  Irrelevant tactile stimulation biases visual exploration in external coordinates , 2015, Scientific Reports.

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

[7]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Multiple spatial codes and temporal overlap in choice-reaction tasks , 1996 .

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

[9]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Principles for Designing Interfaces Compatible With Human Information Processing , 2016, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[10]  S. Soto-Faraco,et al.  Tactile remapping beyond space , 2010, The European journal of neuroscience.

[11]  B. Hommel Effects of irrelevant spatial S-R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity , 1994, Psychological research.

[12]  S. Soto-Faraco,et al.  Somatosensory saccades reveal the timing of tactile spatial remapping , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  C. Spence,et al.  Early Vision Impairs Tactile Perception in the Blind , 2004, Current Biology.

[14]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[15]  Elger L Abrahamse,et al.  The premotor theory of attention and the Simon effect. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[16]  Gregor Thut,et al.  The costs of crossing paths and switching tasks between audition and vision , 2009, Brain and Cognition.

[17]  M. Moscovitch,et al.  Must egocentric and environmental frames of reference be aligned to produce spatial S-R compatibility effects? , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  M. Reiner,et al.  Sensory dominance in combinations of audio, visual and haptic stimuli , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  The role of preparation and cue-modality in crossmodal task switching. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[20]  E. Maris,et al.  Orienting Attention to an Upcoming Tactile Event Involves a Spatially and Temporally Specific Modulation of Sensorimotor Alpha- and Beta-Band Oscillations , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  J. Ridley Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions , 2001 .

[22]  Charles Spence,et al.  The cognitive and neural correlates of tactile memory. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Effects of spatial attention on directional manual and ocular responses , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  Iring Koch,et al.  Crossmodal attention switching: auditory dominance in temporal discrimination tasks. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[25]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[26]  J R Simon,et al.  Processing auditory information: interference from an irrelevant cue. , 1969, The Journal of applied psychology.

[27]  J R Simon,et al.  Auditory S-R compatibility: reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[28]  I ROCK,et al.  Vision and Touch: An Experimentally Created Conflict between the Two Senses , 1964, Science.

[29]  S. Monsell,et al.  Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. , 1995 .

[30]  Ole Jensen,et al.  Tactile expectation modulates pre-stimulus β-band oscillations in human sensorimotor cortex , 2010, NeuroImage.

[31]  Carlo Umiltà,et al.  Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes , 1994, Psychological research.

[32]  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.

[33]  R. Wallace,et al.  S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[34]  Peter Schroeder-Heister,et al.  Spatial Coding and Spatio-Anatomical Mapping: Evidence for a Hierarchical Model of Spatial Stimulus-Response Compatibility , 1990 .

[35]  F. Colavita Human sensory dominance , 1974 .

[36]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Multisensory executive functioning , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[37]  Jean-Marc Sieffermann,et al.  Perceived Intensity of Vibrotactile Stimuli: Do Your Clothes Really Matter? , 2016, EuroHaptics.

[38]  Iring Koch,et al.  Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance , 2010, Psychological research.

[39]  S. Soto-Faraco,et al.  Changing Reference Frames during the Encoding of Tactile Events , 2008, Current Biology.

[40]  T. Stoffer Attentional focussing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility , 1991, Psychological research.

[41]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Control and interference in task switching--a review. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[42]  S. Monsell Task switching , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[43]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Intersensory selective attention and temporal orienting operate in parallel and are instantiated in spatially distinct sensory and motor cortices , 2015, Human brain mapping.

[44]  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.

[45]  C. Spence,et al.  Developmental vision determines the reference frame for the multisensory control of action , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[47]  H. Egeth,et al.  Toward a translational model of Stroop interference , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[48]  T Hasbroucq,et al.  Preliminary Evidence for Body-Centered Coding of Tactile Motor Events , 1987, Perceptual and motor skills.

[49]  C. Spence,et al.  Visual dominance and attention: The Colavita effect revisited , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[50]  L. G. Gawryszewski,et al.  What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? , 1986 .

[51]  R. Lubbe,et al.  FAILURE OF THE EXTENDED CONTINGENT ATTENTIONAL CAPTURE ACCOUNT IN MULTIMODAL SETTINGS , 2006 .

[52]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  Automatic visual bias of perceived auditory location , 1998 .

[53]  M. Posner,et al.  Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. , 1976, Psychological review.

[54]  R W Proctor,et al.  Auditory stimulus-response compatibility: Is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence? , 2000, Psychological research.

[55]  S. Kitazawa,et al.  Reversal of subjective temporal order due to arm crossing , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[56]  G. Tassinari,et al.  Influence of spatial stimulus-response compatibility on reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized light stimuli. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[57]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science , 2015, Science.

[58]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Attention and spatial stimulus coding in the Simon task: a rejoinder to van der Lubbe and Abrahamse (2010). , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[59]  Avishai Henik,et al.  In touch with the Simon effect. , 2014, Experimental psychology.

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

[61]  P. Haggard,et al.  Dynamic Tuning of Tactile Localization to Body Posture , 2015, Current Biology.

[62]  S. Soto-Faraco,et al.  Cross‐modal decoupling in temporal attention , 2014, The European journal of neuroscience.

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

[64]  Carlo Umiltà,et al.  Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility , 1987 .

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

[66]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Somatotopic representation of location: evidence from the Simon effect. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[67]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[68]  C. Spence,et al.  The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[69]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[70]  Elger L. Abrahamse,et al.  What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis, and proposed synthesis , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[71]  S. Kitazawa Where conscious sensation takes place , 2002, Consciousness and Cognition.

[72]  J. Brooks Why most published research findings are false: Ioannidis JP, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece , 2008 .

[73]  T Hasbroucq,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: toward a conceptual clarification. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.