Action Comprehension: Deriving Spatial and Functional Relations.

Bach, Patric; Knoblich, Günther; Gunter, Thomas C.; Friederici, Angela D.; Prinz, Wolfgang

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.3.465

Cited by 47 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent work in action comprehension supports this idea. For example, Bach, Knoblich, Gunter, Friederici, and Prinz (2005) examined the interdependence of functional and spatial information. In one experiment, participants made judgments about the spatial configuration of the objects, and the functional relation between the objects was manipulated to match or mismatch.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing the presence, placement, and properties of a distractor in spatial language tasks

Carlson

Hill

2008

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

240We interact with objects in a variety of ways: We recognize them, we act on them, and we speak about them. Each of these processes requires selecting an intended object from a set of nonintended objects. For example, with respect to recognition, if I want to make a phone call, I need to distinguish my cell phone from the objects surrounding it on my desk. With respect to language, I can convey the location of the cell phone to a listener who may want to use it. For example, I could spatially relate it to another object in the scene, as in The cell phone is behind the book. In this description, the cell phone is the located object, and the book is the reference object. Selection in this case includes not only the located object, but also the reference object, given the many objects surrounding the cell phone. Indeed, one could describe the cell phone's location in different ways, depending on the reference object selected, such as to the left of the monitor, in front of the coffee cup, or at the corner of the desk. The goal of the present article is to more closely investigate conditions in which a reference object must be selected in the presence of an additional distractor. We are specifically interested in the degree to which the presence, placement, and properties of multiple objects are evaluated during reference object selection. The Role of Salience in Reference Object SelectionIt is typically assumed that a reference object is selected on the basis of properties that make it salient relative to other surrounding objects, and therefore easy to find (de Vega, Rodrigo, Ato, Dehn, & Barquero, 2002;Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976;Talmy, 1983). Such an assumption is consistent with work in communication that argues that referential descriptions that include distinct attributes that make an object stand out in contrast to surrounding objects are particularly helpful in disambiguating the intended referent (Brown-Schmidt, Byron, & Tanenhaus, 2005;Eberhard, Spivey-Knowlton, Sedivy, & Tanenhaus, 1995;Olson, 1970). For example, Olson argued that a speaker would describe the same small round white block as the white one when in the context of a small round black block, and as the round one when in the context of a small square white block.There are many possible properties that could potentially define salience, including perceptual, conceptual, and spatial features. With respect to perceptual features, Talmy (1983) argued that the spatial description The bicycle is near the house is more acceptable than The house is near the bicycle because the house is larger and more permanently situated, rendering it a more stable and hence more preferred reference object. In addition to size and stability, Talmy argued that reference objects may have greater geometric complexity. In addition, using a corpora of spatial descriptions, de Vega et al. (2002) found that reference objects were more likely to be (1) inanimate, (2) solid in their consistency, and (3) whole entities or mass objects (e.g., a beach or an ocean) rather than...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing the presence, placement, and properties of a distractor in spatial language tasks

Carlson

Hill

2008

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These observations have posed a challenge to motor-matching views of action understanding, and have led several theorists to suggest either that the direct-matching account has to be revised, or that motoric matching cannot be the primary driver of action understanding in humans (Bach et al, 2005, 2011; Csibra, 2008; Kilner, 2011). Here, we propose a new view, which incorporates the available data on motoric matching and mirror neurons, but places them in a model of action understanding that emphasizes the role of object knowledge, which helps predict and interpret any observed motor act.…”

Section: Action Understanding In An Object Context: the Affordance-mamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar evidence comes from behavioral and imaging studies in humans. Passively viewing an object, for example, has been shown to activate not only the basic movements for reaching and grasping it (e.g., Tucker and Ellis, 1998, 2001; Grèzes et al, 2003; Buccino et al, 2009), but also—under appropriate circumstances—the more idiosyncratic movements required for realizing the objects’ specific functions (e.g., the swinging movement required to hammer in a nail; for a review, Creem and Proffitt, 2001; Bach et al, 2005; Bub et al, 2008; van Elk et al, 2009; see van Elk et al, 2013). …”

Section: Action Information Provided By Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Already in 12 month old infants, object function contributes to object individuation and categorization (e.g., Booth and Waxman, 2002; Kingo and Krøjgaard, 2012). In adults, several studies have shown that an object is identified more easily when preceded by an object with either a similar or complementary function (e.g., corkscrew, wine bottle) (e.g., Riddoch et al, 2003; Bach et al, 2005; McNair and Harris, 2013), or one that requires similar forms of manipulation (e.g., both a piano and a keyboard require typing, Helbig et al, 2006; McNair and Harris, 2012). These results are mirrored on a neurophysiological level by fMRI repetition suppression effects for objects associated with similar actions, even when these objects are only passively viewed (e.g., Yee et al, 2010; Valyear et al, 2012).…”

Section: Action Information Provided By Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, it has been known for a long time that lesions to the left-hemispheric tool networks disrupt knowledge not only of what the objects are “for”—goals that can achieved with them—but also knowledge of how they have to be used, while disruptions of function knowledge only are rare (Ochipa et al, 1989; Hodges et al, 1999; Haaland et al, 2000; Buxbaum and Saffran, 2002; Goldenberg and Spatt, 2009). In addition, there is a host of behavioral studies demonstrating that the activation of manipulation knowledge is tied to the prior activation of function/goal information, both on the behavioral (Bach et al, 2005; van Elk et al, 2009; McNair and Harris, 2013) and on the neurophysiological level (Bach et al, 2010b). For example, in a recent study based on Tucker and Ellis (1998) classic affordance paradigm, it was shown that which of an object’s manipulation was retrieved—grasping for placing or for functional object use—was determined by which goal was suggested by the surrounding context (see also Valyear et al, 2011; Kalénine et al, 2013).…”

Section: Action Information Provided By Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The affordance-matching hypothesis: how objects guide action understanding and prediction

Bach

Nicholson

Hudson

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Action understanding lies at the heart of social interaction. Prior research has often conceptualized this capacity in terms of a motoric matching of observed actions to an action in one’s motor repertoire, but has ignored the role of object information. In this manuscript, we set out an alternative conception of intention understanding, which places the role of objects as central to our observation and comprehension of the actions of others. We outline the current understanding of the interconnectedness of action and object knowledge, demonstrating how both rely heavily on the other. We then propose a novel framework, the affordance-matching hypothesis, which incorporates these findings into a simple model of action understanding, in which object knowledge—what an object is for and how it is used—can inform and constrain both action interpretation and prediction. We will review recent empirical evidence that supports such an object-based view of action understanding and we relate the affordance matching hypothesis to recent proposals that have re-conceptualized the role of mirror neurons in action understanding.

show abstract

“Feeling” others' painful actions: The sensorimotor integration of pain and action information

Morrison

Tipper

Fenton-Adams

et al. 2012

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensorimotor regions of the brain have been implicated in simulation processes such as action understanding and empathy, but their functional role in these processes remains unspecified. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to demonstrate that postcentral sensorimotor cortex integrates action and object information to derive the sensory outcomes of observed hand–object interactions. When subjects viewed others’ hands grasping or withdrawing from objects that were either painful or nonpainful, distinct sensorimotor subregions emerged as showing preferential responses to different aspects of the stimuli: object information (noxious vs. innocuous), action information (grasps vs. withdrawals), and painful action outcomes (painful grasps vs. all other conditions). Activation in the latter region correlated with subjects’ ratings of how painful each object would be to touch and their previous experience with the object. Viewing others’ painful grasps also biased behavioral responses to actual tactile stimulation, a novel effect not seen for auditory control stimuli. Somatosensory cortices, including primary somatosensory areas 1/3b and 2 and parietal area PF, may therefore subserve somatomotor simulation processes by integrating action and object information to anticipate the sensory consequences of observed hand–object interactions. Hum Brain Mapp, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Action Comprehension: Deriving Spatial and Functional Relations.

Cited by 47 publications

References 45 publications

Processing the presence, placement, and properties of a distractor in spatial language tasks

Processing the presence, placement, and properties of a distractor in spatial language tasks

The affordance-matching hypothesis: how objects guide action understanding and prediction

“Feeling” others' painful actions: The sensorimotor integration of pain and action information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About