Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constrained postures and spatial S–R compatibility as measured by the Simon effect

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Whereas working under constrained postures is known to influence the worker’s perceived comfort and health, little is known in regard to its influence on performance. Employing an Auditory Simon task while varying posture, we investigated the relationship between constrained postures and cognitive processes in three experiments. In Experiment 1 and 2, participants operated a rocker switch or a control knob with one hand either in front or in the back of their body and while either sitting or kneeling. Perceived musculoskeletal exertion was gathered with a questionnaire. Results of the first two experiments showed differently perceived comfort and a minor effect of constrained posture on cognitive performance. However, results indicated that spatial coding in the back compares to either a virtual turn of the observer towards the control device (front-device coding) or along the observer’s hand (effector coding). To clarify this issue the rocker switch was operated with one or two hands in Experiment 3, showing a comparable coding only in the one-hand condition and indicating evidence for the effector-coding hypothesis in the back.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that this research can be related to the field of level II perspective taking. See Kessler and Thomson (2010) and Moll and Meltzoff (2011) for an elaboration on the topic and Janczyk (2013) for evidence of costs of mental self-rotation.

  2. Note that Simon (1968, as cited in Simon, 1990) as well as Heister, Ehrenstein and Schroeder-Heister (1987) demonstrated the existence of the Simon effect with two fingers of one hand. More recent evidence comes from a study by Cho and Proctor (2010).

References

  • Beermann, B., Brenscheidt, F., & Siefer, A. (2005). Arbeitsbedingungen in Deutschland—Belastungen, Anforderungen und Gesundheit. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatnager, V., Drury, C. G., & Schiro, S. G. (1985). Posture, postural discomfort, and performance. Human Factors, 27, 189–199.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, G. (1982). Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14, 377–381.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS), & Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA). (2009). Sicherheit und Gesundheit bei der Arbeit 2009, Unfallverhütungsbericht Arbeit. Berlin: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 853–861.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DIN EN ISO 9241-9 (2000). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)—Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices.

  • Fabbri, M., Martoni, M., Esposito, M. J., Brighetti, G., & Natale, V. (2006). Postural control after a night without sleep. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2520–2525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guiard, Y. (1983). The lateral coding of rotations: a study of the Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 331–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haslegrave, C. M. (1994). What do we mean by a ‘working posture’? Ergonomics, 37, 781–799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heister, G., Ehrenstein, W. H., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1987). Spatial S-R compatibility with unimanual two-finger choice reactions: effects of irrelevant stimulus location. Perception and Psychophysics, 42, 195–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 546–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hünting, W., Läubli, T. H., & Grandjean, E. (1981). Postural and visual loads at VDT workplaces I. Constrained postures. Ergonomics, 24, 917–931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janczyk, M. (2013). Level 2 perspective taking entails two processes: evidence from PRP experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1878–1887.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, K., & Thomson, L. A. (2010). The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference. Cognition, 114, 72–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura, K., Imanaka, K., & Kita, I. (2002). The effects of different instructions for preparatory muscle tension on simple reaction time. Human Movement Science, 21, 947–960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, M.-H., & Drury, C. G. (2000). Posture, discomfort and performance in a VDT task. Ergonomics, 43, 345–359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moll, H., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2011). Perspective-taking and its foundation in joint attention. In N. Eilan, H. Lerman, & J. Roessler (Eds.), Perception, causation, and objectivity. Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 286–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Murchison, N. M., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). Spatial compatibility effects with unimanual and bimanual wheel-rotation responses: an homage to Guiard (1983). Journal of Motor Behavior, 45, 441–454.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Müsseler, J., Koch, I., & Wühr, P. (2005). Testing the boundary conditions for processing irrelevant location information: the cross-task Simon effect. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 708–726. doi:10.1080/09541440540000068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Umiltá, C. (2006). Processing of irrelevant location information under dual-task conditions. Psychological Research, 70, 459–467. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0010-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nag, A., Vyas, H., Shah, P., & Nag, P. K. (2012). Risk factors and musculoskeletal disorders among women workers performing fish processing. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 55, 833–843.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9, 74–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., Miles, J. D., & Baroni, G. (2011). Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 242–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: data, theory, and application. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roswarski, T. E., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Auditory stimulus-response compatibility: is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence? Psychological Research, 63, 148–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. F. (1980). Some effects of instructed muscle tension on choice reaction time and movement time. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 59–74). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiu, L. P., & Kornblum, S. (1999). Stimulus-response compatibility effects in go-no-go tasks: a dimensional overlap account. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1613–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: an integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. (1969). Processing auditory information: interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spijkers, W. A. (1990). The relation between response-specificity, S-R compatibility, foreperiod duration and muscle-tension in a target aiming task. Acta Psychologica, 75, 262–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spilling, S., Eitrheim, J., & Åaras, A. (1986). Cost-benefit analysis of work environment investment at STK’s telephone plant at Kongsvinger. In N. Corlett, J. Wilson, & I. Manenica (Eds.), The ergonomics of working postures (pp. 380–397). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, N., Bard, C., LaRue, J., & Fleury, M. (1993). On the cognitive penetrability of posture control. Experimental Aging Research, 19, 1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D.-Y. D., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2003). The Simon effect with wheel-rotation responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 261–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wascher, E. (2005). The timing of stimulus localisation and the Simon effect: an ERP study. Experimental Brain Research, 163, 430–439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, D. C., Lee, J. D., Liu, Y., & Becker, S. E. G. (2004). Human factors engineering. New Jersey: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worringham, C. J., & Beringer, D. B. (1989). Operator orientation and compatibility in visual-motor task performance. Ergonomics, 32, 387–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worringham, C. J., & Beringer, D. B. (1998). Directional stimulus-response compatibility: a test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics, 41, 864–880.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Markus Janczyk, Robert Proctor, and Bernhard Hommel for their valuable and constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to either author at the Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University. Email: kreutzfeldt@ or muesseler@psych.rwth-aachen.de.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, Cognitive and Experimental Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstrasse 17-19, 52066, Aachen, Germany

    Magali Kreutzfeldt

  2. Institute of Psychology, Work and Cognitive Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Marco Leisten & Jochen Müsseler

Authors
  1. Magali Kreutzfeldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Leisten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jochen Müsseler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magali Kreutzfeldt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kreutzfeldt, M., Leisten, M. & Müsseler, J. Constrained postures and spatial S–R compatibility as measured by the Simon effect. Psychological Research 79, 658–668 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0601-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0601-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation