Referential coding and attention-shifting accounts of the Simon effect

1994 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Proctor ◽  
Chen-Hui Lu

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 1248-1260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Dolk ◽  
Bernhard Hommel ◽  
Wolfgang Prinz ◽  
Roman Liepelt


2010 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 1011-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Figliozzi ◽  
Massimo Silvetti ◽  
Sandro Rubichi ◽  
Fabrizio Doricchi


2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Sellaro ◽  
Thomas Dolk ◽  
Lorenza S. Colzato ◽  
Roman Liepelt ◽  
Bernhard Hommel


Author(s):  
Luisa Lugli ◽  
Stefania D’Ascenzo ◽  
Roberto Nicoletti ◽  
Carlo Umiltà

Abstract. The Simon effect lies on the automatic generation of a stimulus spatial code, which, however, is not relevant for performing the task. Results typically show faster performance when stimulus and response locations correspond, rather than when they do not. Considering reaction time distributions, two types of Simon effect have been individuated, which are thought to depend on different mechanisms: visuomotor activation versus cognitive translation of spatial codes. The present study aimed to investigate whether the presence of a distractor, which affects the allocation of attentional resources and, thus, the time needed to generate the spatial code, changes the nature of the Simon effect. In four experiments, we manipulated the presence and the characteristics of the distractor. Findings extend previous evidence regarding the distinction between visuomotor activation and cognitive translation of spatial stimulus codes in a Simon task. They are discussed with reference to the attentional model of the Simon effect.



Author(s):  
Iring Koch ◽  
Vera Lawo

In cued auditory task switching, one of two dichotically presented number words, spoken by a female and a male, had to be judged according to its numerical magnitude. One experimental group selected targets by speaker gender and another group by ear of presentation. In mixed-task blocks, the target-defining feature (male/female vs. left/right) was cued prior to each trial, but in pure blocks it remained constant. Compared to selection by gender, selection by ear led to better performance in pure blocks than in mixed blocks, resulting in larger “global” mixing costs for ear-based selection. Selection by ear also led to larger “local” switch costs in mixed blocks, but this finding was partially mediated by differential cue-repetition benefits. Together, the data suggest that requirements of attention shifting diminish the auditory spatial selection benefit.



2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akio Nishimura ◽  
Chikashi Michimata


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Cosmelli ◽  
Vladimir Lopez ◽  
Javier Lopez-Calderon ◽  
Bernard Renault ◽  
Jacques Martinerie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared Medina ◽  
Dasha Kliot ◽  
H. Branch Coslett
Keyword(s):  




Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document