When objects are close to me: Affordances in the peripersonal space

Abstract

In the present study, we investigated, using language, which motor information is automatically activated by observing 3-D objects (i.e., manipulation vs. function) and whether this information is modulated by the objects' location in space. Participants were shown 3-D pictures of objects located in peripersonal versus extrapersonal space. Immediately after, they were presented with function, manipulation, or observation verbs (e.g., "to drink," "to grasp," "to look at") and were required to judge whether the verb was compatible with the presented object. We found that participants were slower with observation verbs than with manipulation and function verbs. With both function and manipulation verbs, participants were faster when objects were presented in reachable space. Interestingly, the fastest response times were recorded when participants read function verbs while objects were presented in the accessible space. Results suggest that artifacts are first conceived in terms of affordances linked to manipulation and use, and that affordances are differently activated, depending on context.

Root versus roof: automatic activation of location information during word processing

“…Thus, the association between the words and the proposed movement may simply not have been strong enough to result in solid experiential effects in the absence of strengthening contexts. Similarly, in other studies investigating responses to single words, compatibility effects were limited to tasks where participants had to lexically access the words' meanings (e.g., Bub et al, 2008) and can be modified by the reachability of the context objects (Costantini et al, 2011). However, in both cases, a complex experiential trace has to become active (e.g., reactivating a grasping gesture), which potentially involves the top-down integration of several features (e.g., effectors, location, etc.).…”

“…Additionally, several studies have shown that lexical processing of action words is highly context and task dependent. For example, Costantini, Ambrosini, Scorolli, and Borghi (2011) showed that responses are faster if action words follow a picture of an object the action could be performed on and this was presented within a reachable distance (e.g., to plug up preceded by a picture of a bottle in a reachable distance). The strong task dependency of those affordance effects was also observed in a study by Bub, Masson, and Cree (2008) that focused on gestural knowledge-that is, knowledge about how one typically interacts with a particular object.…”

Do task-irrelevant direction-associated motion verbs affect action planning? Evidence from a Stroop paradigm

“…Similarly, it has been suggested that affordances are activated depending on the situational context. For example, compatibility judgements to word pairs such as drink-glass are faster if a glass has previously been presented within a reachable distance (Costantini, Ambrosini, Scorolli, & Borghi, 2011). Additionally, several studies have shown that individual words activate experiential traces related to their literal meaning only when used in a literal rather than a metaphoric or idiomatic manner (Bergen, Lindsay, Matlock, & Narayanan, 2007;Raposo, Moss, Stamatakis, & Tyler, 2009).…”

Detecting peripersonal space: The promising role of ultrasonics

“…Innovative electrophysiological and neuroimaging approaches have highlighted the involvement of large‐scale cortical networks within frontal and parietal cortices by exploring cerebral hemodynamics through cerebral blood flow (CBF), metabolic rate, and oxygenation (Bartolo et al., 2014; Cléry, Guipponi, Wardak, & Ben Hamed, 2015; di Pellegrino & Làdavas, 2015). Altogether, these measures showed significant changes in response to cognitive and motor tasks related to PPS (Brozzoli, Makin, Cardinali, Holmes, & Farnè, 2012; Coello & Fischer, 2015; Costantini, Ambrosini, Scorolli, & Borghi, 2011; Longo & Lourenco, 2007; Makin et al., 2007; Maranesi, Bonini, & Fogassi, 2014). The role and functionalities of defensive PPS have been extensively explored using motor tasks aimed at perturbing PPS (Bisio et al., 2017; Sambo, Forster, Williams, & Iannetti, 2012; Sambo & Iannetti, 2013; Sambo, Liang, Cruccu, & Iannetti, 2012).…”