Exploring the Role of Action Consequences in the Handle-Response Compatibility Effect

Abstract

Previous research investigating handle-response compatibility effects with graspable objects used different categories of objects as stimuli, regardless of their specific, intrinsic characteristics. The current study explores whether different types of objects' characteristics may elicit different types of spatial compatibility, that is, handle-response and response-effect compatibility as well as their potential interaction. In Experiment 1, objects having a graspable handle opposite to either a visible functional component (i.e., handle-function objects: a teapot) or a latent functional component (handle-only objects: a pitcher lacking the spout) were presented separately in different blocks. Both the handle and the goal-directed functional components of these objects were located on the horizontal axis. In Experiment 2, handle-only objects had a handle located on the horizontal axis and a latent functional component located on the vertical axis (e.g., a cup). In both experiments, participants were required to judge the material (plastic and metal) the object was made of. Results showed that the handle-response compatibility effect was sensitive to whether the actions consequences of object manipulation took place on the horizontal rather than on the vertical axis.

Practice and transfer with mappings of spoon tip and handle to keypress responses

“…Alternatively, the association of the salient spoon tip with the spatially corresponding response may be sufficiently strong that even a large amount of practice with an incompatible mapping will not reduce the benefit of a subsequent compatible mapping. A reviewer suggested that such may be the case due to the tip’s functional significance, citing a study by Scerrati, D’Ascenzo, et al (2020) in which stimuli with a functional component to the opposite side of the handle seemed to eliminate an 8 ms benefit of the handle location. However, this finding was obtained with a Simon task (respond whether the pictured object is plastic or metal) and is likely due to the opposing spatial properties of the functional end and the handle (Cho & Proctor, 2011).…”

Compatibility effects with destination and origin of motion

“…Therefore, both the intention to produce a certain motion and the consequences or effects of certain actions spark off spatial compatibility effects. In a similar vein, Scerrati, D'Ascenzo, Lugli, Iani, Rubichi, and Nicoletti [11] showed that the spatial compatibility between action-effects and response is able to counteract the spatial compatibility between object-manipulation and response. More specifically, the compatibility effect between handle and response did not emerge if the effect of the action was expected to occur on the horizontal axis, that is contralateral to the object's grasping handle.…”

Does a look of fear prompt to act? The effects of gaze and face emotional expression on manipulable objects

“…The target stimulus was the photograph of a cup made of plastic taken by Scerrati et al (2020a), Experiment 2 who demonstrated a critical role of the functional part of the object in the occurrence of the H-R compatibility effect. An inverted version of the cup was digitally generated by a mirror reversal on the vertical axis by using Gimp 2.…”