Incidental and context-responsive activation of structure- and function-based action features during object identification.

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that action representations are activated during object processing, even when task-irrelevant. In addition, there is evidence that lexical-semantic context may affect such activation during object processing. Finally, prior work from our laboratory and others indicates that function-based (“use”) and structure-based (“move”) action subtypes may differ in their activation characteristics. Most studies assessing such effects, however, have required manual object-relevant motor responses, thereby plausibly influencing the activation of action representations. The present work utilizes eyetracking and a Visual World Paradigm task without object-relevant actions to assess the time course of activation of action representations, as well as their responsiveness to lexical-semantic context. In two experiments, participants heard a target word and selected its referent from an array of four objects. Gaze fixations on non-target objects signal activation of features shared between targets and non-targets. The experiments assessed activation of structure-based (Experiment 1) or function-based (Experiment 2) distractors, using neutral sentences (“S/he saw the …”) or sentences with a relevant action verb (Experiment 1: “S/he picked up the……”; Experiment 2: “S/he used the….”). We observed task-irrelevant activations of action information in both experiments. In neutral contexts, structure-based activation was relatively faster-rising but more transient than function-based activation. Additionally, action verb contexts reliably modified patterns of activation in both Experiments. These data provide fine-grained information about the dynamics of activation of function-based and structure-based actions in neutral and action-relevant contexts, in support of the “Two Action System” model of object and action processing (e.g., Buxbaum & Kalénine, 2010).

Conflict between object structural and functional affordances in peripersonal space

“…Unreachable objects may not evoke motor affordances at all, as previous EEG findings from Wamain et al (2016) suggest, or unreachable objects may only evoke functional affordances, since the involvement of functional gestures in object visual representations may be more stable than that of structural gestures (Buxbaum & Kalénine, 2010;Lee et al, 2013). The present behavioral results cannot disentangle between the two alternatives.…”

“…Perceived objects reactivate many different action representations in a flexible way (Borghi & Riggio, 2015;Natraj, Pella, Borghi, & Wheaton, 2015;Thill, Caligiore, Borghi, Ziemke, & Baldassarre, 2013). In particular, perceived objects may evoke both structural and functional affordances (Bub, Masson, & Cree, 2008;Lee, Middleton, Mirman, Kalénine, & Buxbaum, 2013). Moreover, the relative importance of structural and functional gesture activation depends on visual context and action goals.…”

The Role of Action Representations in Thematic Object Relations

“…Recently, eye-tracking studies have demonstrated that visual attention is diverted to distractor objects sharing action features with targets even in the absence of an overt action task. For example, when searching for a named object, participants look longer at distractors sharing a hand posture (e.g., pinch, palm, clench, or poke) with the target than at actionunrelated distractors (Lee et al, 2013). Moreover, participants with deficits in action recognition and skilled object use show a reduction and delay in this competition pattern (Myung et al, 2010;Lee et al, submitted).…”

“…One explanation of these results is that the privileged status of thematic relations for manipulable artifacts reflects the action knowledge that we have about these objects. Indeed, a growing number of studies suggest that action knowledge is a component of the semantic representations of manipulable artifacts (Helbig et al, 2006(Helbig et al, , 2010Myung et al, 2006Myung et al, , 2010Campanella and Shallice, 2011;Lee et al, 2013). On most accounts of semantic memory, these action features of objects are represented separately from other kinds of semantic features, like color, shape, and typical location (e.g., Allport, 1985;Warrington and McCarthy, 1987;McRae et al, 1997;Barsalou, 1999).…”

Sensory and semantic activations evoked by action attributes of manipulable objects: Evidence from ERPs

“…Incidental retrieval of action information during object processing has been found even in the absence of action preparation, imagery, or execution (Green and Hummel, 2006; Harris et al, 2012; Helbig et al, 2006; Roberts and Humphreys, 2011; Wamain et al, 2014). For example, when searching for an object in an array, participants fixate more on related distractors sharing manipulation actions with the targets than on unrelated distractors (Lee et al, 2013; Myung et al, 2006). …”