Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based correspondence effects?

Proctor, Robert W.; Lien, Mei-Ching; Thompson, Lane

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.009

Cited by 34 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of our experiments clearly showed this to be the case, with the alignment effect completely changing over from favouring the handle side of the object under pixel centring to favouring the body side under whole-object centring (see Figure 5). This result is consistent with a recent report by Proctor, Lien, and Thompson (2017).…”

Section: Insidious Spatial Correspondence Effectssupporting

confidence: 94%

Intentions and actions.

Masson

2018

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manipulable objects have the potential to evoke mental representations of hand actions. Behavioural evidence favouring the view that this process happens automatically while passively viewing objects is critically examined. A case is made for the alternative proposal that objects may evoke action representations when observers concurrently operate with an intention to engage in a reach-and-grasp action. In addition, the nature of hand action representations was examined by considering two components of actions, hand selection and wrist orientation, and it is shown that the relationship between these dimensions is modulated by task context. When an action representation is evoked by a task-irrelevant object, these two dimensions are to a large extent independent of one another, but when an observer prepares an action for immediate production, these two action features are hierarchically integrated, with hand selection dominating the hierarchy. Public Significance Statement Knowledge about objects includes the actions we use when interacting with them. This work describes how action knowledge is recruited when people encounter objects and demonstrates differences between this action knowledge and what happens when a person prepares to perform an action. These different ways of organizing our thoughts about actions appear to be associated with different brain regions.

show abstract

Section: Insidious Spatial Correspondence Effectssupporting

confidence: 94%

Intentions and actions.

Masson

2018

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This advantage for the tip-relevant condition with the compatible mapping indicates that the left or right location of the spoon tip is more salient than that of the handle. This difference in salience is an expected consequence of the spoon stimuli being centered on the display such that the trial-to-trial change in left or right location is larger for the tip than for the handle (Masson, 2018;Proctor et al, 2017). Accordingly, the tip location yielded a large spatial compatibility effect when it was relevant, whereas handle location yielded a slightly negative compatibility effect when it was relevant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Furthermore, Kourtis and Vingerhoets (2015) concluded that affordances offered by photographs of objects play a role with key-press responses. In opposition to this view, Yu, Abrams, and Zacks (2014), Proctor et al (2017), and Bub et al (2018) provided evidence that even with photographs of objects, key-press responses do not show a grasping affordance effect. Instead, the results are most easily explained by spatial coding accounts that apply to spatial compatibility effects more generally (Proctor & Vu, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…However, evidence has accrued that at least in many cases the effect is attributable to spatial compatibility unrelated to grasping (Bub, Masson, & Kumar, 2018;Proctor & Miles, 2014). Consequently, although some authors call this handle-press correspondence effect affordance compatibility (e.g., Pappas, 2014), we prefer the more theoretically neutral term object-based compatibility (e.g., Proctor, Lien, & Thompson, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual salience, not the graspable part of a pictured eating utensil, grabs attention

Xiong

Proctor

Zelaznik

2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments used compatible and incompatible mappings of images of eating utensils to test the hypothesis that these images activate affordances for grasping with the corresponding hand when the required response is a key-press. In Experiment 1, stimuli were photographs of a plastic spoon oriented on the horizontal axis, with the handle location varying randomly between left and right. Participants were instructed to respond to the handle or the tip, with a compatible mapping in one trial block and an incompatible mapping in another. A benefit for the compatible mapping was evident when the spoon tip was defined as relevant and a smaller cost when the handle was defined as relevant, suggesting a larger influence of the tip than the handle. In Experiment 2, the stimuli were photographs of bamboo chopsticks, for which the functional end is pointed and the graspable end is squared. East Asian participants familiar with chopsticks showed compatibility effects that did not differ significantly between the two ends. In Experiment 3, the chopstick handles were colored red to make them relatively more distinct than the tips. Both East Asian participants (Experiment 3B) and a more diverse sample (Experiment 3A) showed a benefit of the compatible mapping when the handle was defined as task relevant but not when the functional end was. Altogether, the results provide evidence that left-right location of a visually salient feature is the main factor driving these compatibility effects, rather than the automatic activation of a grasping affordance.

show abstract

“…Thus, the use of silhouette-like objects by Cho and Proctor, instead of more realistic objects, would hamper affordancerelated activations weakening the affordance interpretation. In a more recent study, Proctor et al (2017) investigated the role of different aspects on object-based correspondence effects: silhouette vs. photograph images of objects; near vs. far response keys; and within-vs. between-hand responses. Despite concluding that the correspondence effect is primarily driven by spatial coding, they also found a contribution of an effector-specific correspondence component when photographs of graspable objects are used.…”

Section: The Stroop-matching Response Conflict For Graspable and Non mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Stroop-matching task as a tool to study the correspondence effect using images of graspable and non-graspable objects

Caldas

Machado-Pinheiro

Daneyko

et al. 2019

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Stroop-matching task is a variation of the Stroop task in which participants have to compare a Stroop stimulus attribute (color or word) to a second stimulus. The Stroop-matching response conflict (SMRC) represents an interference related to the processes involved in selection/execution of manual responses. In the present study we developed a variation of the Stroop-matching task in which the Stroop stimuli were matched to graspable objects (a cup) with intact or broken handles laterally oriented (Experiment 1) or to colored bars laterally presented (Experiment 2). It allowed testing the presence of the correspondence effect for lateralized handles and bars, and its possible influence on SMRC. Two different intervals (100 and 800 ms) were also included to investigate time-modulations in behavioral performance (reaction time and accuracy). Fifty-five volunteers participated in the study. In both experiments, significant SMRC was found, but no interaction occurred between SMRC and correspondence effect, supporting that the hypothesis of different and relatively independent psychological mechanisms is at the basis of each effect. Because significant facilitation for ipsilateral motor responses (correspondence effect) occurred for graspable objects but not for lateralized bars, the attentional shift/spatial coding view was not able to completely explain our data, and therefore, the grasping affordance hypothesis remained as the most plausible explanation. The time course of facilitation observed in the first experiment and by others indicates the importance of further studies to better understand the time dynamic of facilitation/inhibition of motor responses induced by graspable objects.

show abstract

Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based correspondence effects?

Cited by 34 publications

References 26 publications

Intentions and actions.

Intentions and actions.

Visual salience, not the graspable part of a pictured eating utensil, grabs attention

The Stroop-matching task as a tool to study the correspondence effect using images of graspable and non-graspable objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About