Further evidence that object-based correspondence effects are primarily modulated by object location not by grasping affordance

Lien, Mei-Ching; Gray, Daniel; Jardin, Elliott; Proctor, Robert W.

doi:10.1080/20445911.2014.940959

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a scenario could potentially cast a shadow of doubt on more than a decade of research on variable affordances using centralized stimuli. In fact, recent findings have increasingly emphasized the role of object location in producing object-based correspondence effects (Lien et al 2014;Proctor and Miles 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects

Kostov

Janyan

2015

Cogn Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responses are faster when the task-irrelevant orientation of a graspable object's handle corresponds to the location of the response hand. Over the past decade, research has focused on dissociating between two competing accounts of this effect: One rooted in motoric object affordances and the other resting on attentional mechanisms (i.e., Simon effect). Following this avenue of inquiry, we conducted three experiments, in which subjects had to respond bimanually to grayscale photographs of frying pans and saucepans. In addition to horizontal orientation (control/leftward/rightward handles), Experiments 1 and 2 also manipulated the direction of exogenous attentional shifts (left/right) using laterally placed, colored markers within the objects. Both experiments yielded regular Simon effects based on the location of the colored markers. However, in stark contrast to previous research, a negative stimulus-response compatibility effect was obtained with regard to the orientation of the graspable handles. This reversed affordance effect was also observed using the original, unedited grayscale photographs (Experiment 3), which suggested that its occurrence cannot be attributed to the use of colored markers. These unexpected findings appear to support the idea that Simon effects result from automatic and exogenous attentional orienting mechanisms, whereas affordances arise from controlled and endogenous attentional processes. Such a top-down attentional account of affordance can accommodate the observed reversal of the effect in the context of task characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects

Kostov

Janyan

2015

Cogn Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier research into alignment effects elicited by the handle orientation of objects used paradigms that asked participants to respond with left/right responses (e.g., Bub & Masson 2010 ; Cho & Proctor, 2010 , 2011 , 2013 ; Goslin et al, 2012 ; Iani et al, 2011 ; Lien et al, 2014 ; Pellicano et al, 2010 ; Phillips & Ward, 2002 ; Song et al, 2014 ; Tipper et al, 2006 ; Tucker & Ellis, 1998 ). In Experiment 1 , we manipulated the response action and its similarity to the grip associated with the presented object and found no effect of this manipulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies, however, have questioned this explanation of alignment effects (e.g., Cho & Proctor, 2010 , 2011 , 2013 ; Lien et al, 2014 ; Phillips & Ward, 2002 ; Proctor & Miles, 2014 ; Song et al, 2014 ). According to some of these researchers, alignment effects can be explained by relative spatial coding for the left or right response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, responses to stimulus properties, such as color or upright/inverted orientation, are faster if the response hand is on the same side as the object’s graspable part than if it is on the other side (Tucker & Ellis, 1998 ; Tipper, Paul, & Hayes, 2006 ). The present study examined whether such lateralized grasping responses are activated automatically by pictures of objects 1 (Goslin, Dixon, Fischer, Cangelosi, & Ellis, 2012 ; Handy, Grafton, Schroff, Ketay, & Gazzaniga, 2003 ; Iani, Baroni, Pellicano, & Nicoletti, 2011 ; Makris, Hadar, & Yarrow, 2011 ; Pellicano, Iani, Borghi, Rubichi, & Nicoletti, 2010 ; Tucker & Ellis, 1998 ) or occur because of task-related response competition (Bub & Masson, 2010 ) or abstract spatial coding (Cho & Proctor, 2010 , 2011 ; Lien, Gray, Jardin, & Proctor, 2014 ; Phillips & Ward, 2002 ; Song, Chen, & Proctor, 2014 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alignment effects in beer mugs: Automatic action activation or response competition?

Roest

Pecher

Naeije

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responses to objects with a graspable handle are faster when the response hand and handle orientation are aligned (e.g., a key press with the right hand is required and the object handle is oriented to the right) than when they are not aligned. This effect could be explained by automatic activation of specific motor programs when an object is viewed. Alternatively, the effect could be explained by competition at the response level. Participants performed a reach-and-grasp or reach-and-button-press action with their left or right hand in response to the color of a beer mug. The alignment effect did not vary as a function of the type of action. In addition, the alignment effect disappeared in a go/no-go version of the task. The same results were obtained when participants made upright/inverted decisions, so that object shape was task-relevant. Our results indicate that alignment effects are not due to automatic motor activation of the left or right limb.

show abstract

“…There is evidence that a spatial compatibility mechanism also underlies this handle congruency effect(Cho & Proctor, 2010Lien, Gray, Jardin, & Proctor, 2014); however, it is likely that this mechanism contributes to the effect, rather than explaining it entirely(Pappas, 2014;Saccone et al, 2016;Symes, Ellis, & Tucker, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Close interpersonal proximity modulates visuomotor processing of object affordances in shared, social space

Saccone

Szpak

Churches

et al. 2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research suggests that the human brain codes manipulable objects as possibilities for action, or affordances, particularly objects close to the body. Near-body space is not only a zone for body-environment interaction but also is socially relevant, as we are driven to preserve our near-body, personal space from others. The current, novel study investigated how close proximity of a stranger modulates visuomotor processing of object affordances in shared, social space. Participants performed a behavioural object recognition task both alone and with a human confederate. All object images were in participants' reachable space but appeared relatively closer to the participant or the confederate. Results revealed when participants were alone, objects in both locations produced an affordance congruency effect but when the confederate was present, only objects nearer the participant elicited the effect. Findings suggest space is divided between strangers to preserve independent near-body space boundaries, and in turn this process influences motor coding for stimuli within that social space. To demonstrate that this visuomotor modulation represents a social phenomenon, rather than a general, attentional effect, two subsequent experiments employed nonhuman joint conditions. Neither a small, Japanese, waving cat statue (Experiment 2) nor a metronome (Experiment 3) modulated the affordance effect as in Experiment 1. These findings suggest a truly social explanation of the key interaction from Experiment 1. This study represents an important step toward understanding object affordance processing in real-world, social contexts and has implications broadly across fields of social action and cognition, and body space representation.

show abstract

Further evidence that object-based correspondence effects are primarily modulated by object location not by grasping affordance

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects

Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects

Alignment effects in beer mugs: Automatic action activation or response competition?

Close interpersonal proximity modulates visuomotor processing of object affordances in shared, social space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About