Hommel Bernhard
Leiden University, Institute for Psychological Research & Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, The Netherlands.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Feb;136(2):265-8. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.10.002. Epub 2010 Oct 30.
Hommel (2011-this issue) has reviewed the major lines of research and ongoing controversies on and around the Simon effect. Van der Lubbe and Abrahamse (2010) take issue with Hommel's assessment of the role of attention shifting in the Simon effect. This rejoinder argues that van der Lubbe and Abrahamse's criticism is off target because it (a) fails to distinguish between the attention-shifting account of (spatial stimulus coding in) the Simon effect-which Hommel discusses and criticizes-and the premotor theory of attention-which Hommel does not discuss; (b) confuses the relationship between the attention-shifting account and the referential-coding account of spatial stimulus coding in the Simon effect-the actual topic of Hommel's discussion-with the relationship between the premotor theory and the theory of event coding-which the criticism focuses on; and (c) confuses the uncontroversial role of attention in stimulus selection with the controversial role of attention in the generation of location codes.
霍梅尔（2011年，本期）回顾了关于西蒙效应及其相关的主要研究方向和当前存在的争议。范德·卢贝和亚伯拉罕斯（2010年）对霍梅尔关于注意转移在西蒙效应中作用的评估提出了异议。本回应认为，范德·卢贝和亚伯拉罕斯的批评偏离了目标，因为它（a）未能区分霍梅尔所讨论和批评的西蒙效应（空间刺激编码中的）注意转移解释与霍梅尔未讨论的运动前注意理论；（b）将注意转移解释与西蒙效应中空间刺激编码的参照编码解释之间的关系（霍梅尔讨论的实际主题）与运动前理论和事件编码理论之间的关系（批评所关注的）相混淆；以及（c）将注意在刺激选择中无争议的作用与注意在位置编码生成中存在争议的作用相混淆。
