STIMULUS CONGRUITY, IRRELEVANT SPATIAL SR CORRESPONDENCE, AND DISPLAY-CONTROL ARRANGEMENT CORRESPONDENCE - A REPLY

We recall how Hasbroucq and Guiard (1991) defined stimulus (S) congruity, the SS-correspondence factor they demonstrated to account for both the Simon effect and the Hedge and Marsh effect, and how they explained the mechanisms that bring S congruity into play in the verbal and nonverbal versions of the Simon task and in the Hedge and Marsh task. We show that, contrary to O'Leary, Barber, and Simon's claim, Hasbroucq and Guiard used a consistent definition of S congruity across the various tasks of interest. Finally, we recognize that Hasbroucq and Guiard's experiments produced no direct falsification of the display control arrangement correspondence (DCC) hypothesis - the special-purpose hypothesis put forward by Simon and his group as an attempt to reconcile the Hedge and Marsh effect with their interpretation of the Simon effect in terms of irrelevant spatial SR correspondence -, but we argue that the DCC account is unnecessary and implausible.