Multimodal Simon Effect: A Multimodal Extension of the Diffusion Model for Conflict Tasks

In conflict tasks, like the Simon task, it is usually investigated how task-irrelevant information affects the processing of task-relevant information. In the present experiments, we extended the Simon task to a multimodal setup, in which task-irrelevant information emerged from two sensory modalities. Specifically, in Experiment 1, participants responded to the identity of letters presented at a left, right, or central position with a left- or right-hand response. Additional tactile stimulation occurred on a left, right, or central position on the horizontal body plane. Response congruency of the visual and tactile stimulation was orthogonally varied. In Experiment 2, the tactile stimulation was replaced by auditory stimulation. In both experiments, the visual task-irrelevant information produced congruency effects such that responses were slower and less accurate in incongruent than incongruent conditions. Furthermore, in Experiment 1, such congruency effects, albeit smaller, were also observed for the tactile task-irrelevant stimulation. In Experiment 2, the auditory task-irrelevant stimulation produced the smallest effects. Specifically, the longest reaction times emerged in the neutral condition, while incongruent and congruent conditions differed only numerically. This suggests that in the co-presence of multiple task-irrelevant information sources, location processing is more strongly determined by visual and tactile spatial information than by auditory spatial information. An extended version of the Diffusion Model for Conflict Tasks (DMC) was fitted to the results of both experiments. This Multimodal Diffusion Model for Conflict Tasks (MDMC), and a model variant involving faster processing in the neutral visual condition (FN-MDMC), provided reasonable fits for the observed data. These model fits support the notion that multimodal task-irrelevant information superimposes across sensory modalities and automatically affects the controlled processing of task-relevant information.

[1]  A. Rollett,et al.  The Monte Carlo Method , 2004 .

[2]  P. A. Warren,et al.  Adapting the Crossmodal Congruency Task for Measuring the Limits of Visual-Tactile Interactions Within and Between Groups. , 2015, Multisensory research.

[3]  D. C. Higgins Human Spatial Orientation , 1967, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[4]  J Driver,et al.  Crossmodal Spatial Influences of Touch on Extrastriate Visual Areas Take Current Gaze Direction into Account , 2002, Neuron.

[5]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions , 2015, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[7]  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.

[8]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. , 2004, Psychological review.

[9]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Effect of irrelevant information on the processing of relevant information: Facilitation and/or interference? The influence of experimental design , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  C. Spence,et al.  Spatial constraints on visual-tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects , 2004, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[11]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. , 1990, Psychological review.

[12]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Model evaluation using grouped or individual data , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[14]  J. D. Rains SIGNAL LUMINANCE AND POSITION EFFECTS IN HUMAN REACTION TIME. , 1963, Vision research.

[15]  Majid Nili Ahmadabadi,et al.  Multisensory Perception of Contradictory Information in an Environment of Varying Reliability: Evidence for Conscious Perception and Optimal Causal Inference , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[16]  Christian Frings,et al.  Vision affects tactile target and distractor processing even when space is task-irrelevant , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[17]  Ronald Hübner,et al.  Does attentional selectivity in global/local processing improve discretely or gradually? , 2014, Front. Psychol..

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

[19]  T. Stanford,et al.  Multisensory integration: current issues from the perspective of the single neuron , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[20]  J R Simon,et al.  Effects of an irrelevant auditory stimulus on visual choice reaction time. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  R. Ulrich,et al.  On the time-course of automatic response activation in the Simon task , 2018, Psychological research.

[22]  L. McClain,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  G. Recanzone,et al.  Temporal and spatial dependency of the ventriloquism effect , 2001, Neuroreport.

[24]  J. R. Simon,et al.  CHOICE REACTION TIME AS A FUNCTION OF ANGULAR STIMULUS-RESPONSE CORRESPONDENCE AND AGE , 1963 .

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

[26]  Hans Colonius,et al.  Visual-tactile spatial interaction in saccade generation , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[28]  Borís Burle,et al.  Linking Theoretical Decision-making Mechanisms in the Simon Task with Electrophysiological Data: A Model-based Neuroscience Study in Humans , 2016, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[30]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[31]  Mary Florentine,et al.  Binaural Loudness Summation for Speech and Tones Presented via Earphones and Loudspeakers , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[32]  G. Logan Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  P. Bertelson,et al.  Cross-modal bias and perceptual fusion with auditory-visual spatial discordance , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Brigitte Röder,et al.  Spatial attention affects the processing of tactile and visual stimuli presented at the tip of a tool: an event-related potential study , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  W. Estes,et al.  Risks of drawing inferences about cognitive processes from model fits to individual versus average performance , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[36]  D. H. Warren,et al.  Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. , 1980, Psychological bulletin.

[37]  M. Stone Models for choice-reaction time , 1960 .

[38]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[39]  C. Spence,et al.  Tactile-Visual Links in Exogenous Spatial Attention under Different Postures: Convergent Evidence from Psychophysics and ERPs , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

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

[42]  Colin M. Macleod Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[43]  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.

[44]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[45]  Randi C. Martin,et al.  A developmental study of the auditory stroop effect , 1988, Brain and Language.

[46]  G. Logan,et al.  Testing the validity of conflict drift-diffusion models for use in estimating cognitive processes: A parameter-recovery study , 2018, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[47]  Wolf Schwarz,et al.  Response time models of delta plots with negative-going slopes , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[48]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. , 2002 .

[49]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[50]  C. Eriksen,et al.  A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[51]  N Osaka,et al.  Reaction Time as a Function of Peripheral Retinal Locus around Fovea: Effect of Stimulus Size , 1976, Perceptual and motor skills.

[52]  Jeffrey C. Lagarias,et al.  Convergence Properties of the Nelder-Mead Simplex Method in Low Dimensions , 1998, SIAM J. Optim..

[53]  Marty G. Woldorff,et al.  Cross-Modal Stimulus Conflict: The Behavioral Effects of Stimulus Input Timing in a Visual-Auditory Stroop Task , 2013, PloS one.

[54]  Brandon M. Turner,et al.  Approximating Bayesian Inference through Model Simulation , 2018, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[55]  Gillian Cohen,et al.  Hemisphere differences in an auditory Stroop test , 1975 .