Limits...
Interacting hands: the role of attention for the joint Simon effect.

Liepelt R - Front Psychol (2014)

Bottom Line: Experiment 1 provided evidence for a Simon effect.Hand position significantly modulated the size of the Simon effect in the joint Simon task showing an increased Simon effect when the hands of both actors were located near the objects on the monitor, than when they were located away from the monitor.This strengthens the weight of the spatial response codes (referential coding) and hence increases the joint Simon effect.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute for Psychology, University of Muenster Muenster, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Recent research in monkeys and humans has shown that the presence of the hands near an object enhances spatial processing for objects presented near the hand. This study aimed to test the effect of hand position on the joint Simon effect. In Experiment 1, two human co-actors shared a Simon task while placing their response hands either near the objects appearing on the monitor or away from the monitor. Experiment 2 varied each co-actor's hand position independently. Experiment 3 tested whether enhanced spatial processing for objects presented near the hand is obtained when replacing one of the two co-actors by a non-human event-producing rubber hand. Experiment 1 provided evidence for a Simon effect. Hand position significantly modulated the size of the Simon effect in the joint Simon task showing an increased Simon effect when the hands of both actors were located near the objects on the monitor, than when they were located away from the monitor. Experiment 2 replicated this finding showing an increased Simon effect when the actor's hand was located near the objects on the monitor, but only when the co-actor also produced action events in spatial reference. A similar hand position effect was observed in Experiment 3 when a non-human rubber hand replaced the human co-actor. These findings suggest that external action events that are produced in spatial reference bias the distribution of attention to the area near the hand. This strengthens the weight of the spatial response codes (referential coding) and hence increases the joint Simon effect.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean reaction time (RT; in milliseconds) of the joint Simon task (upper middle panel), the individual Simon task (lower left panel) and the standard Simon task (lower right panel) as a function of hand position (hands monitor, hands knee) and compatibility (compatible, incompatible) of Experiment 1 (**p < 0.01 indicating the interaction of hand position and compatibility in the joint Simon task). Error bars depict the SE of the mean.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4269294&req=5

Figure 2: Mean reaction time (RT; in milliseconds) of the joint Simon task (upper middle panel), the individual Simon task (lower left panel) and the standard Simon task (lower right panel) as a function of hand position (hands monitor, hands knee) and compatibility (compatible, incompatible) of Experiment 1 (**p < 0.01 indicating the interaction of hand position and compatibility in the joint Simon task). Error bars depict the SE of the mean.

Mentions: The RT analyses showed a significant main effect of compatibility, F(1,23) = 61.42, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.73, which indicated that irrespective of setting and hand position, responses were faster with S–R compatibility (420 ms) than with incompatibility (434 ms), reflecting an overall Simon effect. The analysis also revealed a significant main effect of setting, F(2,46) = 44.06, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.66. RTs in the joint Simon task were faster (391 ms) as compared to the individual Simon task (417 ms) and the standard Simon task (473 ms). Both factors, setting and compatibility significantly interacted, F(2,46) = 9.01, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.28, showing that the compatibility effects was significantly increased in the joint Simon task (18 ms, p < 0.001), as compared to the individual Simon task (7 ms, p = 0.001), F(1,23) = 19.26, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.46, while the compatibility effects between the joint Simon task and the standard Simon task (19 ms, p < 0.001) were not statistically different (F < 1). Further, there was a significant three-way interaction of setting, hand position and compatibility, F(2,46) = 3.37, p = 0.043, partial η2 = 0.13 (see Figure 2) showing that hand position had a stronger impact on the compatibility effect in the joint Simon task, as in the individual Simon task, F(1,23) = 6.44, p = 0.018, partial η2 = 0.22, and the standard Simon task F(1,23) = 4.20, p = 0.05, partial η2 = 0.15 1. The significant interaction of hand position × compatibility in the joint Simon task, F(1,23) = 9.64, p = 0.005, partial η2 = 0.30, indicated a larger compatibility effect when both actors’ hands were located on the monitor (22 ms, t = 7.1, p < 0.001), as when they were located on their knee (14 ms, t = 4.8, p < 0.001). No such effect of hand position on the compatibility effect was observed in the individual and the standard Simon task (both Fs < 1). No further main effects or interactions reached statistical significance (all ps > 0.05).


Interacting hands: the role of attention for the joint Simon effect.

Liepelt R - Front Psychol (2014)

Mean reaction time (RT; in milliseconds) of the joint Simon task (upper middle panel), the individual Simon task (lower left panel) and the standard Simon task (lower right panel) as a function of hand position (hands monitor, hands knee) and compatibility (compatible, incompatible) of Experiment 1 (**p < 0.01 indicating the interaction of hand position and compatibility in the joint Simon task). Error bars depict the SE of the mean.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4269294&req=5

Figure 2: Mean reaction time (RT; in milliseconds) of the joint Simon task (upper middle panel), the individual Simon task (lower left panel) and the standard Simon task (lower right panel) as a function of hand position (hands monitor, hands knee) and compatibility (compatible, incompatible) of Experiment 1 (**p < 0.01 indicating the interaction of hand position and compatibility in the joint Simon task). Error bars depict the SE of the mean.
Mentions: The RT analyses showed a significant main effect of compatibility, F(1,23) = 61.42, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.73, which indicated that irrespective of setting and hand position, responses were faster with S–R compatibility (420 ms) than with incompatibility (434 ms), reflecting an overall Simon effect. The analysis also revealed a significant main effect of setting, F(2,46) = 44.06, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.66. RTs in the joint Simon task were faster (391 ms) as compared to the individual Simon task (417 ms) and the standard Simon task (473 ms). Both factors, setting and compatibility significantly interacted, F(2,46) = 9.01, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.28, showing that the compatibility effects was significantly increased in the joint Simon task (18 ms, p < 0.001), as compared to the individual Simon task (7 ms, p = 0.001), F(1,23) = 19.26, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.46, while the compatibility effects between the joint Simon task and the standard Simon task (19 ms, p < 0.001) were not statistically different (F < 1). Further, there was a significant three-way interaction of setting, hand position and compatibility, F(2,46) = 3.37, p = 0.043, partial η2 = 0.13 (see Figure 2) showing that hand position had a stronger impact on the compatibility effect in the joint Simon task, as in the individual Simon task, F(1,23) = 6.44, p = 0.018, partial η2 = 0.22, and the standard Simon task F(1,23) = 4.20, p = 0.05, partial η2 = 0.15 1. The significant interaction of hand position × compatibility in the joint Simon task, F(1,23) = 9.64, p = 0.005, partial η2 = 0.30, indicated a larger compatibility effect when both actors’ hands were located on the monitor (22 ms, t = 7.1, p < 0.001), as when they were located on their knee (14 ms, t = 4.8, p < 0.001). No such effect of hand position on the compatibility effect was observed in the individual and the standard Simon task (both Fs < 1). No further main effects or interactions reached statistical significance (all ps > 0.05).

Bottom Line: Experiment 1 provided evidence for a Simon effect.Hand position significantly modulated the size of the Simon effect in the joint Simon task showing an increased Simon effect when the hands of both actors were located near the objects on the monitor, than when they were located away from the monitor.This strengthens the weight of the spatial response codes (referential coding) and hence increases the joint Simon effect.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute for Psychology, University of Muenster Muenster, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Recent research in monkeys and humans has shown that the presence of the hands near an object enhances spatial processing for objects presented near the hand. This study aimed to test the effect of hand position on the joint Simon effect. In Experiment 1, two human co-actors shared a Simon task while placing their response hands either near the objects appearing on the monitor or away from the monitor. Experiment 2 varied each co-actor's hand position independently. Experiment 3 tested whether enhanced spatial processing for objects presented near the hand is obtained when replacing one of the two co-actors by a non-human event-producing rubber hand. Experiment 1 provided evidence for a Simon effect. Hand position significantly modulated the size of the Simon effect in the joint Simon task showing an increased Simon effect when the hands of both actors were located near the objects on the monitor, than when they were located away from the monitor. Experiment 2 replicated this finding showing an increased Simon effect when the actor's hand was located near the objects on the monitor, but only when the co-actor also produced action events in spatial reference. A similar hand position effect was observed in Experiment 3 when a non-human rubber hand replaced the human co-actor. These findings suggest that external action events that are produced in spatial reference bias the distribution of attention to the area near the hand. This strengthens the weight of the spatial response codes (referential coding) and hence increases the joint Simon effect.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus