Advertisement

Hand-Object Interaction: From Grasping to Using

  • Long Ni
  • Ye Liu
  • Xiaolan Fu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8511)

Abstract

Evidence from psychology has shown that visual man-made manipulable objects can afford grasping actions even without the observers’ intention to grasp them, and humans are able to use grasping information to recognize objects. But little is known if visual man-made objects, especially tools, can potentiate much more complex actions associated with using an object. In the present study, a priming paradigm was used to explore if passively viewing manipulable objects could be enough to activate specific action information about how to use them. The results showed that target objects with similar functional manipulation information to the prime objects were identified significantly faster than that with dissimilar manipulation knowledge to the prime objects. This is the first evidence by using behavioral study to indicate that just passively viewing a manipulable object is sufficient to activate its specific manipulation information that could facilitate object identification even without participants’ intention to use them. The implications of manipulation knowledge in object affordances and object representation are discussed.

Keywords

Structural manipulation Functional manipulation Object recognition Object affordances 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Binkofski, F., Buxbaum, L.J.: Two Action Systems in the Human Brain. Brain and Language 127(2), 222–229 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buxbaum, L.J., Kalenine, S.: Action Knowledge, Visuomotor Activation, and Embodiment in the Two Action Systems. Year in Cognitive Neuroscience 1191, 201–218 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daprati, E., Sirigu, A.: How We Interact with Objects: Learning from Brain Lesions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(6), 265–270 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bub, D.N., Masson, M.E.J.: On the Dynamics of Action Representations Evoked by Names of Manipulable Objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141(3), 502–517 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sahbani, A., El-Khoury, S., Bidaud, P.: An Overview of 3D Object Grasp Synthesis Algorithms. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 60(3), 326–336 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gratal, X., Bohg, J., Björkman, M., Kragic, D.: Scene Representation and Object Grasping Using Active Vision. In: IROS 2010 Workshop on Defining and Solving Realistic Perception Problems in Personal Robotics (October 2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castellini, C., Tommasi, T., Noceti, N., Odone, F., Caputo, B.: Using Object Affordances to Improve Object Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 3(3), 207–215 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stark, M., Lies, P., Zillich, M., Wyatt, J., Schiele, B.: Functional Object Class Detection Based on Learned Affordance Cues. In: Gasteratos, A., Vincze, M., Tsotsos, J.K. (eds.) ICVS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5008, pp. 435–444. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kjellstrom, H., Romero, J., Kragic, D.: Visual Recognition of Grasps for Human-to-Robot Mapping. In Intelligent Robots and Systems. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3192–3199 (September 2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vainio, L., Symes, E., Ellis, R., Tucker, M., Ottoboni, G.: On the Relations between Action Planning, Object Identification, and Motor Representations of Observed Actions and Objects. Cognition 108(2), 444–465 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tucker, M., Ellis, R.: Action Piming by Briefly Presented Objects. Acta Psychologica 116(2), 185–203 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1966)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Symes, E., Ellis, R., Tucker, M.: Visual Object Affordances: Object Orientation. Acta Psychologica 124(2), 238–255 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riggio, L., Iani, C., Gherri, E., Benatti, F., Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R.: The Role of Attention in the Occurrence of the Affordance Effect. Acta Psychologica 127(2), 449–458 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Makris, S., Hadar, A.A., Yarrow, K.: Viewing Objects and Planning Actions: On the Potentiation of Grasping Behaviours by Visual Objects. Brain and Cognition 77(2), 257–264 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chao, L.L., Martin, A.: Representation of Manipulable Man-made Objects in the Dorsal Stream. NeuroImage 12(4), 478–484 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Creem-Regehr, S.H., Lee, J.N.: Neural Representations of Graspable Objects: Are Tools Special? Cognitive Brain Research 22(3), 457–469 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bub, D.N., Masson, M.E.J.: Gestural Knowledge Evoked by Objects As Part of Conceptual Representations. Aphasiology 20(9), 1112–1124 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bub, D.N., Masson, M.E.J., Cree, G.S.: Evocation of Functional and Volumetric Gestural Knowledge by Objects and Words. Cognition 106(1), 27–58 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Helbig, H.B., Graf, M., Kiefer, M.: The Role of Action Representations in Visual Object Recognition. Experimental Brain Research 174(2), 221–228 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chemero, A.: An Outline of A Theory of Affordances. Ecological Psychology 15, 181–195 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sahin, E., Çakmak, M., Dogar, M.R., Ugur, E., Üçoluk, G.: To Afford or Not to Afford: A New Formalization of Affordances Toward Affordance-Based Robot Control. Adaptive Behavior 15, 447 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mahon, B.Z., Caramazza, A.: A Critical Look at the Embodied Cognition Hypothesis and A New Proposal for Grounding Conceptual Content. Journal of Physiology-Paris 102(1-3), 59–70 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Devlin, J.T., Moore, C.J., Mummery, C.J., Gorno-Tempini, M.L., Phillips, J.A., Noppeney, U., Frackowiak, R.S.J., Friston, K.J., Price, C.J.: Anatomic Constraints on Cognitive Theories of Category Specificity. NeuroImage 15, 675–685 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Long Ni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ye Liu
    • 1
  • Xiaolan Fu
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of PsychologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations