Size coding of alternative responses is sufficient to induce a potentiation effect with manipulable objects

Heurley, Loïc; Brouillet, Thibaut; Morgado, Nicolas

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104377

Cited by 13 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the compatibility effects observed could not be solely attributed to the coding of the size of the effector or the response device. When disentangling effector and device size, Heurley et al (2020) found a compatibility effect between stimulus and device size but not between stimulus and effector size. In the present study, we bring evidence that when it is not possible to code the response keys in terms of small or large properties (monotonic cylinder), a facilitation can arise solely from the compatibility between stimulus and effector size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Although results do not support the affordance evocation hypothesis and appear rather consistent with the abstract coding hypothesis, the processes underlying abstract coding of object size remain uncertain. If we consider the works of Heurley et al (2020) and Proctor et al (1990), compatibility effects would result from shared abstract codes, with facilitation when the abstract codes of [large] and [small] properties of the stimulus and the response match. According to the theory of event coding (Hommel, 2019; Hommel et al, 2001), common coding of stimulus and response would be achieved in the format of a distal code that would be applied to the dimension of size in the compatibility effects observed here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To our knowledge, only a few very recent studies explicitly evaluated whether abstract coding of object size may be sufficient to induce compatibility effects between the size of visual objects and grasp responses (Guerineau et al, 2022; Harrak et al, 2022; Heurley et al, 2020; Pecher et al, 2019). In the work of Heurley et al (2020), black and white pictures of small and large fruit, and vegetable items that may be graspable with a power or a precision grasp were presented in their actual size. Then, the object turned orange or blue, and participants had to determine which colour the target object changed into.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, grasp affordance evocation may not be necessarily at play during visual object processing. Heurley et al (2020) and more recently Harrak et al (2022) provided evidence for abstract coding of the size of the response device in compatibility paradigms, but not for abstract coding of the size of the stimulus. While both may contribute to compatibility effects, the sole demonstration of abstract coding of device size does not directly contradict the hypothesis that the perception of manipulable objects evokes grasp affordances.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Stimulus–response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size?

Lilas

Wamain

Kalénine

2023

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the size of visual objects matches the size of the response required to perform the task, a potentiation effect has been reported, with faster responses in compatible than incompatible situations. Size compatibility effects have been taken as evidence of close perception-action interrelations. However, it is still unclear whether the effect arises from abstract coding of the size of stimulus and response or from the evocation of grasp affordances from visual objects. We aimed to disentangle the two interpretations. Two groups of 40 young adults categorised small and large objects presented in standardised size as natural or artefacts objects. One group categorised manipulable objects that may be associated with small or large size properties and evoke power and precision grasp affordances. The other groups categorised non-manipulable objects that may only be associated with small or large size properties. Categorisation responses were made by reaching and grasping a monotonic cylindric device with a power and precision grip in a grasping condition and with large or small touch responses in a control condition. Compatibility effects were found in both grasping and control conditions, independently of the manipulability or category of objects. Participants were faster when the size of the expected response matched the size of the object than when they mismatched, especially for power grasp or whole-hand touch responses. Overall findings support the abstract coding hypothesis and suggest that compatibility between the conceptual size of the object and the size of the hand response is sufficient to facilitate semantic categorization judgements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stimulus–response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size?

Lilas

Wamain

Kalénine

2023

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, a similar effect is also observed with pictures and with the names of manipulable objects. This suggests that the conceptual processing of manipulable objects activates the related motor pattern which subsequently facilitates the related action (for an alternative account of these effects, see Guerineau et al, 2021; Heurley et al, 2020). Consistently, reading the names of manipulable objects activates the motor system (e.g., Carota et al, 2012; Rueschemeyer et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Postural Effect on the Memory of Manipulable Objects

Dutriaux

Gyselinck

2021

Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The grounded cognition approach posits the involvement of sensory-motor processes in the representation of knowledge. However, the functional impact of these processes on cognition has been questioned, and some authors have explored the effect of motor interference on memory to test causally this hypothesis. In a seminal study, Dutriaux and Gyselinck (2016) showed that keeping the hands behind the back during learning decreases the memory of manipulable objects, but not the memory of nonmanipulable objects. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the mechanism behind the effect of posture in memory observed by Dutriaux and Gyselinck. The present experiment replicated the posture manipulation during learning but asked participants to keep their hands behind the back during recall. Results showed a similar detrimental effect of the hands behind the back specific to manipulable objects. This shows that the mechanism behind this effect arises from postural interference rather than from a compatibility between the posture during learning and the posture during recall and adds new evidence in favor of the sensory-motor grounding of knowledge.

show abstract

The size coding of responses: The size of switches and the force feedback

Heurley,

Michalland,

Guerineau

et al. 2023

Int J Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to understand which factors have a functional role in the size coding of responses, either the size of the switches or the force required to trigger each switch. This question is of relevance because it allows a better understanding of processes underlying action coding. In each trial, participants saw a small or large object. Depending on its colour, the participants had to press one of two switches. In the “size” condition, the response device consisted of two switches of different visual size, but both required the same amount of force. In the “force‐feedback” condition, the response device consisted in two switches of identical visual size, but one switch required more force than the other. We found a compatibility effect in the “size,” not in the “force‐feedback” condition, supporting that the size‐coding of responses would be due to the size of the switches.

show abstract

Size coding of alternative responses is sufficient to induce a potentiation effect with manipulable objects

Cited by 13 publications

References 44 publications

Stimulus–response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size?

Stimulus–response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size?

The Postural Effect on the Memory of Manipulable Objects

The size coding of responses: The size of switches and the force feedback

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About