Affordances, context and sociality

Abstract

Affordances, i.e. the opportunity of actions offered by the environment, are one of the central research topics for the theoretical perspectives that view cognition as emerging from the interaction between the environment and the body. Being at the bridge between perception and action, affordances help to question a dichotomous view of perception and action. While Gibson's view of affordances is mainly externalist, many contemporary approaches define affordances (and micro-affordances) as the product of long-term visuomotor associations in the brain. These studies have emphasized the fact that affordances are activated automatically, independently from the context and the previous intention to act: for example, affordances related to objects' size would emerge even if the task does not require focusing on size. This emphasis on the automaticity of affordances has led to overlook their flexibility and contextual-dependency. In this contribution I will outline and discuss recent perspectives and evidence that reveal the flexibility and contextdependency of affordances, clarifying how they are modulated by the physical, cultural and social context. I will focus specifically on social affordances, i.e. on how perception of affordances might be influenced by the presence of multiple actors having different goals.

The neuroethology of spontaneous mimicry and emotional contagion in human and non-human animals

“…In fact, as we discuss next, recent versions of social embodiment theories incorporate the role of social context and social goals (as highlighted by social appraisal theory) as parameters that control the extent and form of embodiment. More specifically, several researchers have recently highlighted that all embodiment processes, from action (including mimicry) to language, are sensitive to context and goals (Barsalou, 2017;Borghi, 2018;Zwaan, 2014). In some way, these revisions bring cognitive embodiment theories closer in line with neural frameworks that have emphasized the interaction of goals with sensorimotor processing in J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f perceiving and understanding actions (Keyser and Gazzaniga, 2009).…”

The influence of location, ownership, and the presence of a coactor on the processing of objects.

“…Based on previous work showing a processing advantage for self-owned objects (Golubickis et al, 2018(Golubickis et al, , 2019, it was predicted that RTs to self-owned mugs would be shorter than RTs to unowned mugs. However, it is unknown whether or not the processing advantage for self-owned objects is modulated by the location of the object in peri-personal versus extra-personal space (i.e., whether or not there is the potential for the individual to act on the object; see Costantini et al, 2010Costantini et al, , 2011; for a review, see Borghi, 2018). Previous research has theorized that the ownership of space may implicitly signify the potential to act upon objects (Strachan et al, 2020).…”

Gaze and body cues interplay during interactive requests

“…Social inputs may influence affordance perception, modulating our motor responses. Social affordances specifically refer to affordances modulated by social situations and contexts [71]. They depend on the presence of social signals, whose function is to alter a recipient’s behavior by triggering a range of opportunities for actions [72,73], and the willingness to engage in an interactive task [74].…”