Simon-Like and Functional Affordance Effects with Tools: The Effects of Object Perceptual Discrimination and Object Action State

Pellicano, Antonello; Iani, Cristina; Borghi, Anna M.; Rubichi, Sandro; Nicoletti, Roberto

doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.486903

Cited by 107 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Along with the finding in Experiment 1, the results suggest that the object-based correspondence effect is primarily driven by object location (the spatial-coding account; e.g., Bub & Masson, 2010;Cho & Proctor, 2010) rather than by the orientation of an object's grasping component (the object affordance account; Goslin et al, 2012;Iani et al, 2011;Pellicano et al, 2010;Tucker & Ellis, 1998).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…The basic finding is that responses are faster when the correct response is on the same side as the handle (e.g., a left key response when the handle is oriented to the left) than when it is on the opposite side (e.g., Tucker & Ellis, 1998). This object-based correspondence effect has been attributed by many authors to a grasping affordance (the object affordance account; e.g., Iani, Baroni, Pellicano, & Nicoletti, 2011;Pellicano, Iani, Borghi, Rubichi, & Nicoletti, 2010;Tucker & Ellis, 1998). However, other authors have proposed instead that the effect is due primarily, if not entirely, to location coding similar to the coding that underlies the correspondence effects obtained for stimuli displayed in left and right locations (the spatial-coding account; e.g., Bub & Masson, 2010;Cho & Proctor, 2010; see also Bub, Masson, & Lin, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Lien

Jardin

Proctor

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined Goslin, Dixon, Fischer, Cangelosi, and Ellis's (Psychological Science 23:152-157, 2012) claim that the object-based correspondence effect (i.e., faster keypress responses when the orientation of an object's graspable part corresponds with the response location than when it does not) is the result of object-based attention (vision-action binding). In Experiment 1, participants determined the category of a centrally located object (kitchen utensil vs. tool), as in Goslin et al.'s study. The handle orientation (left vs. right) did or did not correspond with the response location (left vs. right). We found no correspondence effect on the response times (RTs) for either category. The effect was also not evident in the P1 and N1 components of the event-related potentials, which are thought to reflect the allocation of early visual attention. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2 for centrally located objects, even when the object was presented 45 times (33 more times than in Exp. 1). Critically, the correspondence effects on RTs, P1s, and N1s emerged only when the object was presented peripherally, so that the object handle was clearly located to the left or right of fixation. Experiment 3 provided further evidence that the effect was observed only for the base-centered objects, in which the handle was clearly positioned to the left or right of center. These findings contradict those of Goslin et al. and provide no evidence that an intended grasping action modulates visual attention. Instead, the findings support the spatial-coding account of the object-based correspondence effect.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 66%

mentioning

confidence: 88%

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

Lien

Jardin

Proctor

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This occurs when the handles of manipulable objects are presented such that they are more accessible to one hand or another, resulting in an enhanced response from the compatible hand, in terms of both reaction times and motor-evoked potentials (Buccino et al 2009;Tucker and Ellis 2004). This has been shown to not be just a Simon effect (i.e., faster right-hand responses for right visual-field stimuli and vice versa), but instead derives from the functional properties of the object (Buccino et al 2009;Makris et al 2011;Pellicano et al 2010). For instance, it does not hold if objects have broken handles that still extend towards the left or right but no longer afford a functional grasp (Buccino et al 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Attention is required for the perceptual integration of action object pairs

McNair

Harris

2015

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have demonstrated that functionally related objects are perceptually grouped during visual identification if they are depicted as if interacting with each other (Green and Hummel in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(5):1107-1119, 2006). However, it is unclear whether this integration requires attention or occurs pre-attentively. Here, we used a divided-attention task with variable attentional load to address this question. Participants matched a word label to a target object that was immediately preceded by a briefly presented, task-irrelevant tool that was either functionally related or unrelated to the word label (e.g., axe | "log" or hammer | "log"). The tool was either positioned to interact with the target object or faced away from it. The amount of attention available to process the tool was manipulated by asking participants to make a concurrent perceptual discrimination of varying difficulty on a surrounding frame stimulus. The previously demonstrated advantage for the related-and-interacting condition was replicated under conditions of no or low attentional load. This benefit disappeared under high competing attentional load, indicating that attention is required to integrate functionally related objects together into a single perceptual unit.

show abstract

“…To the best of our knowledge, Tipper et al (2006) were the first who showed that the affordance effect was modulated by the task, since it was present only when participants were required to categorize handles as to their shape, not to their color. In keeping with this result, Pellicano et al (2010) used torches and demonstrated that when categorizing them on the basis of color (blue vs. red), a Simon effect (compatibility between the goal-directed tip of the object and the location of the key to press to respond) was found, but no affordance effect was present. The affordance effect, intended as the compatibility between the position of the object handle (left, right) and the location of the key to press (left, right), was present only when participants had to decide whether a given torch was upright or reversed.…”

Section: Affordances Automaticity Questionedmentioning

confidence: 87%

Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible

Borghi

Riggio

2015

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mere observation of pictures or words referring to manipulable objects is sufficient to evoke their affordances since objects and their nouns elicit components of appropriate motor programs associated with object interaction. While nobody doubts that objects actually evoke motor information, the degree of automaticity of this activation has been recently disputed. Recent evidence has indeed revealed that affordances activation is flexibly modulated by the task and by the physical and social context. It is therefore crucial to understand whether these results challenge previous evidence showing that motor information is activated independently from the task. The context and the task can indeed act as an early or late filter. We will review recent data consistent with the notion that objects automatically elicit multiple affordances and that top-down processes select among them probably inhibiting motor information that is not consistent with behavior goals. We will therefore argue that automaticity and flexibility of affordances are not in conflict. We will also discuss how language can incorporate affordances showing similarities, but also differences, between the motor information elicited by vision and language. Finally we will show how the distinction between stable and variable affordances can accommodate all these effects.

show abstract

Simon-Like and Functional Affordance Effects with Tools: The Effects of Object Perceptual Discrimination and Object Action State

Cited by 107 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

Attention is required for the perceptual integration of action object pairs

Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About