Advertisement

Do already grasped objects activate motor affordances?

  • Cristina Iani
  • Luca Ferraro
  • Natale Vincenzo Maiorana
  • Vittorio Gallese
  • Sandro Rubichi
Original Article

Abstract

This study investigated whether in a stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) task affordance effects in response to picture of graspable objects emerge when these objects appear as already grasped. It also assessed whether the observed effects could be explained as due to spatial compatibility between the most salient part in the object/display and the hand of response rather than to action potentiation. To this aim, we conducted three behavioural experiments in which participants were required to discriminate the vertical orientation (upright vs. inverted) of an object presented in the centre of the screen, while ignoring the right–left orientation of its handle. The object could be presented alone, as already grasped, as partially masked (Experiment 1) or with a human hand close to its graspable side (Experiment 2). In addition, to assess the role of perceptual salience, the object could be presented with a human hand or a non-biological (a geometrical shape) distractor located opposite to the object’s graspable side. Results showed faster responses when the object’s handle was located on the same side of the responding hand with a larger effect when upright objects were shown as already grasped (Experiment 1) or when a hand was displayed close to its handle (Experiment 2), and a smaller reversed effect when the hand or the geometrical shape was located opposite to the handled side (Experiment 3). We interpreted these findings as indicating that handle orientation effects emerging in SRC tasks may result from the interplay between motor affordance and spatial compatibility mechanisms.

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by a grant (Fondo di Ateneo FAR 2014) from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia to Cristina Iani.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The manuscript does not report clinical studies or patient data. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study fulfilled the ethical standard procedure recommended by the Italian Association of Psychology (AIP). It was approved by the Department of Communication and Economics of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adamo, M., & Ferber, S. (2009). A picture says more than a thousand words: behavioural and ERP evidence for attentional enhancements due to action affordances. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1600–1608.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.07.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. J., Yamagishi, N., & Karavia, V. (2002). Attention processes link perception and action. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 269(1497), 1225–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach, P., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2010). The predictive mirror: interactions of mirror and affordance processes during action observation. Psychomomic Bulletin Review, 18, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, P., Nicholson, T., & Hudson, M. (2014). The affordance-matching hypothesis: how objects guide action understanding and prediction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 254.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00254.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Borghi, A. M., Bonfiglioli, C., Lugli, L., Ricciardelli, P., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2006). Are visual stimuli sufficient to evoke motor information? Studies with hand primes. Neuroscience Letters, 411, 17–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2015). Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 351.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106, 3–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 341–358.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Kumar, R. (2017). Time course of motor affordances evoked by pictured objects and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000431. [Epub ahead of print].PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buccino, G., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., & Riggio, L. (2009). Broken affordances, broken objects: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 47, 3074–3078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardellicchio, P., Sinigaglia, C., & Costantini, M. (2013). Grasping affordances with the other’s hand: A TMS study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 455–459.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage, 12, 478–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 853–861.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 737–749.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021934.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). Object-based correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface-property judgments with keypress responses: evidence for a basis in spatial coding. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77, 618–636.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0458-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Tieri, G., Sinigaglia, C., & Committeri, G. (2010). Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Experimental Brain Research, 207, 95–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellis, R., Swabey, D., Bridgeman, J., May, B., Tucker, M., & Hyne, A. (2013). Bodies and other visual objects: the dialectics of reaching toward objects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77, 31–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Emmanouil, T. A., & Ro, T. (2014). Amodal completion of unconsciously presented objects. Psychonomic Bulettin and Review, 21(5), 1188–1194.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0590-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferraro, L., Iani, C., Mariani, M., Nicoletti, R., Gallese, V., et al. (2012). Look What I Am Doing: Does Observational Learning Take Place in Evocative Task-Sharing Situations? PLoS One, 7(8), e43311.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043311.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Fini, C., Brass, M., & Committeri, G. (2015). Social scaling of extrapersonal space: Target objects are judged as closer when the reference frame is a human agent with available movement potentialities. Cognition, 134, 50–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Franca, M., Turella, L., Canto, R., Brunelli, N., Allione, L., Andreasi, N. G., et al. (2012). Corticospinal Facilitation during Observation of Graspable Objects: A Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study. PLoS One, 7(11), e49025.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049025.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallese, V., Gernsbacher, M. A., Heyes, C., Hickock, G., & Iacoboni, M. (2011). Mirror neuron forum. Perspective in Psychological Science, 6, 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gazzola, V., & Keysers, C. (2009). The observation and execution of actions share motor and somatosensory voxels in all tested subjects: single-subject analyses of unsmoothed fMRI data. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1239–1255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Girardi, G., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Context effects on the processing of action-relavant object features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 330–340.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Goslin, J., Dixon, T., Fischer, M. H., Cangelosi, A., & Ellis, R. (2012). Electrophysiological examination of embodiment in vision and action. Psychological Science, 23, 152–157.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429578.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Grützner, C., Uhlhaas, P. J., Genc, E., Kohler, A., Singer, W., & Wibral, M. (2010). Neuroelectromagnetic correlates of perceptual closure processes. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(24), 8342–8352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73, 512–526.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Iani, C., Baroni, G., Pellicano, A., & Nicoletti, R. (2011). On the relationship between affordance and Simon effects: Are the effects really independent? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iani, C., Rubichi, S., Ferraro, L., Nicoletti, R., & Gallese, V. (2013). Observational learning without a model is influenced by the observer’s possibility to act: Evidence from the Simon task. Cognition, 128(1), 26–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage, 14, 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kourtis, D., & Vingerhoets, G. (2015). Perceiving objects by their function: An EEG study on feature saliency and prehensile affordances. Biological Psychology, 110, 138–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lien, M. C., Jardin, E., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). An electrophysiological study of the object-based correspondence effect: is the effect triggered by an intended grasping action? Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 75, 1862–1882.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0523-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maranesi, M., Bonini, L., & Fogassi, L. (2014). Cortical processing of object affordances for self and others’ action. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 538.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Masson, M. E. J., Bub, D. N., & Breuer, A. T. (2011). Priming of reach and grasp actions by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1470–1484.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Matheson, H., Newman, A. J., Satel, J., & McMullen, P. (2014). Handles of manipulable objects attract covert visual attention: ERP evidence. Brain and Cognition, 86, 17–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Matheson, H. E., White, N. C., & McMullen, P. A. (2014). A test of the embodied simulation theory of object perception: Potentiation of responses to artifacts and animals. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78, 465–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Morrisey, M. N., & Rutherford, M. D. (2013). Do hands attract attention? Visual Cognition, 21(5), 647–672.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.817495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murray, R. F., Sekuler, A. B., & Bennett, P. J. (2001). Time course of amodal completion revealed by a shape discrimination task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8(4), 713–720.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ottoboni, G., Iani, C., Tessari, A., & Rubichi, S. (2013). Modulation of the affordance effect through transfer of learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(12), 2295–2302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pappas, Z. (2014). Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects. Silhouettes and photographs. Cognition, 133, 716–728.  https://doi.org/10.1080/174702105004162243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2010). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: The effects of objects perceptual discrimination and object action state. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2190–2201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riggio, L., Iani, C., Gherri, E., Benatti, F., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2008). The role of attention in the occurrence of the affordance effect. Acta Psychologica, 127, 449–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Slotta, J., & Jorgensen, M. (1990). Constraints for action selection: overhand versus underhand grips. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and Performance XIII: Motor Representation and Control (pp. 321–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Saccone, E. J., Churches, O., & Nicholls, M. E. R. (2016). Explicit spatial compatibility is not critical to the object handle effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000258 (Online First Publication, June 2016).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sartori, L., Cavallo, A., Bucchioni, G., & Castiello, U. (2012). From simulation to reciprocity: The case of complementary actions. Social Neuroscience, 7, 146–158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Snodgrass, J. G., & Feenan, K. (1990). Priming effects in picture fragment completion: support for the perceptual closure hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 276–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Vainio, L., Symes, E., Ellis, R., Tucker, M., & Ottoboni, G. (2008). On the relations between action planning, object identification, and motor representations of observed actions and objects. Cognition, 108, 444–465.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Vingerhoets, G., Vandamme, K., & Vercammen, A. (2009). Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain and Cognition, 69, 481–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Yoon, E. Y., & Humphreys, W. W. (2005). Direct and indirect effects of action on object classification. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1131–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and EconomicsUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  2. 2.Center for Neuroscience and NeurotechnologyUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly
  3. 3.Department of NeuroscienceUniversity of ParmaParmaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Education and Human SciencesUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly

Personalised recommendations