Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions.

Abstract

Choice reactions to a property of an object stimulus are often faster when the location of a graspable part of the object corresponds with the location of a keypress response than when it does not, a phenomenon called the object-based Simon effect. Experiments 1-3 examined this effect for variants of teapot stimuli that were oriented to the left or right. Whether keypress responses were made with fingers within the same hand or between different hands was also manipulated. Experiment 1 showed that, for judgments of stimulus color and upright-inverted orientation, the Simon effect for intact teapots occurred in the direction of the spout location and was larger for within- than between-hand response modes. In Experiments 2 and 3, teapots with the handle or spout removed showed separate contributions of each component to the Simon effect. In Experiment 4, we clarified a discrepancy between our findings of object-based Simon effects and a previously reported absence of effect with color judgments for door-handle stimuli. We obtained an object-based Simon effect with respect to handle position when the bases of the door handles were centered but not when the handles were centered. The findings that object-based Simon effects occur with color judgments and when responses are fingers on the same hand are in closer agreement with a location coding account than with a grasping affordance account.

An electrophysiological study of the object-based correspondence effect: Is the effect triggered by an intended grasping action?

“…Nevertheless, a large significant effect was observed when the base of the object was centrally located (16 ± 6 ms), so that the handle was clearly positioned to either the left or the right of center. This finding replicates that of Cho and Proctor (2011) and is consistent with the spatial-coding account, which predicts that the correspondence effect should be absent for an object-centered but present for a base-centered condition. The absence of the correspondence between response hand and handle orientation for either Fig.…”

“…In Experiment 2, the effect was observed when objects appeared peripherally but not centrally. In Experiment 3, the effect emerged only for the base-centered objects, in which the handle was clearly positioned to the left or right of center, a finding in agreement with Cho and Proctor's (2011) results obtained with door-handle stimuli. The results from these three experiments contradict Goslin et al's (2012) claim and provide no evidence that correspondence effects result from an afforded grasping action.…”

“…Experiment 3 further tested our conclusion by employing Cho and Proctor's (2011) approach of using the central condition only, but with either the base of the object or the whole object being in the center. In the base-centered condition, the base of the object was in the center, so the handle was clearly positioned to the left or the right side.…”

Are object affordances fully automatic? A case of covert attention.

“…Roberts & Humphreys, 2011b) or, somewhat relatedly, the role of attention as a possible confound in experiments investigating affordances via stimuli with lateralised handles (e.g. Anderson et al, 2002;Cho & Proctor, 2010;Riggio et al 2008). Here, we instead consider the extent to which affordances develop for objects appearing inside and outside the locus of covert visuospatial attention.…”

Toward a deeper understanding of embodiment.

“…This idea might be tested by having subjects use their preferred hand to press a large or a small button to make their classification responses or by replicating the original experiment with large and small objects that are not typically manipulated with the hands. I mention these options to illustrate the plausibility of alternative explanations of key results (see also Cho & Proctor, 2011, for a similar reinterpretation of the Tucker & Ellis, 1998, demonstration of action priming).…”