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

Investigating the cognitive processing of tools: Effects of dangerousness and directionality on attentional biases

Research has found a tool-based head-superiority effect (responses are faster to target stimuli that appear at the head than at the handle position). However, these studies did not consider the effects of directionality and dangerousness. This study investigated how directionality and dangerousness influence the head-superiority effect. Subjects were required to respond to the target location in all experiments. Experiment 1 manipulated the directionality, dangerousness and target location. Experiment 2 matched the sharpness of the tool tip in the directed conditions. Experiment 3 shortened the presentation time of the cue stimuli from 800 ms to 200 ms. Experiment 4 selected four tools with different functions to rule out an alternative explanation caused by functional repetition. The results indicate that a head-superiority effect emerges in the directed condition, and that dangerousness modulates the magnitude of this effect during the 800 ms condition. However, the modulation effect of dangerousness diminishes during the 200 ms condition.

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

The mere perception of manipulable objects usually grasped with a power-grip (e.g., an apple) or a precision-grip (e.g., a cherry) potentiate power-grip- and precision-grip-responses, respectively. This effect is seen as to be driven by automatic access of the representation of manipulable objects that includes a motor representation of usually performed grasping behaviors (i.e., the embodied view). Nevertheless, a competing account argues that this effect could be due to an overlapping of size codes used to represent both manipulable objects and response options. Indeed, objects usually grasped with a power- and a precision-grip (e.g., an apple vs. a cherry) could be coded as large- and small-objects, respectively; and power- and precision-grip responses as large- and small-responses, respectively. We conducted 4 experiments to test this hypothesis. In Experiment 1, the response device usually used in studies reporting a potentiation effect is fixed horizontally (the grasping component of responses was removed). We instructed participants to press the small-switch with their index-digit and the large-switch with their palm-hand. In line with the size-coding-hypothesis, responses on the small-switch performed with the index-digit led to shorter RTs when objects usually associated with a precision-grip (e.g., a cherry) were presented compared to objects usually associated with a power-grip (e.g., an apple). A reverse pattern was obtained for responses on the large-switch performed with the palm-hand. In Experiments 2, 3 and 4, we went further by investigating which factors of Experiment 1 allow the size coding of responses: the size of switch and/or the size of the effector part used. Data confirmed the critical involvement of the size of switches and the possible involvement of the size of the effector part used. Thus, data support the possibility that the potentiation of grasping is due to a compatibility/incompatibility between size codes rather than involving motor representations of usually performed grasping behaviors as advocated in several embodied views. Moreover, data support the possibility that responses are coded thanks to a size code that extends the Theory of Event Coding.

Exploring the Role of Action Consequences in the Handle-Response Compatibility Effect

Previous research investigating handle-response compatibility effects with graspable objects used different categories of objects as stimuli, regardless of their specific, intrinsic characteristics. The current study explores whether different types of objects' characteristics may elicit different types of spatial compatibility, that is, handle-response and response-effect compatibility as well as their potential interaction. In Experiment 1, objects having a graspable handle opposite to either a visible functional component (i.e., handle-function objects: a teapot) or a latent functional component (handle-only objects: a pitcher lacking the spout) were presented separately in different blocks. Both the handle and the goal-directed functional components of these objects were located on the horizontal axis. In Experiment 2, handle-only objects had a handle located on the horizontal axis and a latent functional component located on the vertical axis (e.g., a cup). In both experiments, participants were required to judge the material (plastic and metal) the object was made of. Results showed that the handle-response compatibility effect was sensitive to whether the actions consequences of object manipulation took place on the horizontal rather than on the vertical axis.

Critical bottom-up attentional factors in the handle orientation effect: asymmetric luminance transients and object-center eccentricity relative to fixation

In 1998, Tucker and Ellis found that keypress responses are faster when the task-irrelevant orientation of a graspable object's handle corresponds to response hand location. Over the past 20 years, researchers have disagreed over the extent to which grasping affordance or spatial compatibility contributes to the effect. One of the causes behind the conflicting findings and interpretations may be that studies advocating the grasping affordance view have tended to overlook the contributions of low-level perceptual characteristics to the observed correspondence effects. The present study evaluated the role of visual salience and bottom-up attention in the occurrence of the effect. Experiment 1 involved a vertical orientation task (bimanual keypresses) using photographs of graspable objects, centered based on object width or pixel area. The same procedure was performed using a color discrimination task on solid-colored silhouettes, large (Experiment 2) and small-sized (Experiment 3), as well as silhouette outlines (Experiment 4). Similar result patterns across Experiments 1-3 were observed and discussed in the context of diverging findings in Experiment 4, prompting us to introduce the notion of asymmetry-based Simon effects, whereby location is coded at stimulus onset on the basis of asymmetric changes in luminance between both hemifields, coupled with object-center eccentricity relative to fixation. These low-level factors were critical in modulating the temporal dynamics, as well as the direction of compatibility effects (toward handles or bodies), irrespective of grasping affordance, task, object identity, or stimulus size. The present findings provide further evidence that the Tucker and Ellis paradigm for studying variable affordances is extremely vulnerable to location-coding, which may arise on the basis of exogenous deployments of attention. This problem is only exacerbated in a large portion of the relevant literature, whereby visually complex stimuli are primarily discussed in terms of their graspable nature and relation to task, rather than their low-level, attention-capturing features.

A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect

The object-based compatibility effect (CE) describes, in the context of two-choice keypress tasks, the facilitation of response times (RTs) by the correspondence between participants' response hand and the task-irrelevant orientation of a viewed object's handle. Object-based CEs are often attributed to affordance perception. Although the object-based CE paradigm is the major RT task used to study affordances, failures to replicate the effect have raised questions about its robustness. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the object-based CE is indeed indicative of affordances, or whether it is merely an example of spatial CEs brought about by the object's protruding handle. We present a meta-analysis of object-based CEs to (1) obtain a point estimate of the overall effect and (2) test for moderation consistent with either affordance or spatial compatibility accounts. From 88 independent effects (computed on 2359 participants), we estimated a small but significant compatibility effect (ES = 0.106, z = 5.44, p < .001 95% CI:[0.068, 0.145]), although evidence of publication bias suggests that the true effect is smaller in magnitude. Further, we found significant heterogeneity in effect sizes, indicating between-study variation beyond sampling variability. Moderator analyses indicated that CEs were larger when (1) task-relevant decisions were not about the function of objects, (2) when stimuli were silhouettes as opposed to photographs, and (3) when objects were centered on-screen according to their base or pixel distribution. Response mode (within vs between-hand) did not moderate CEs, nor did the critical interaction between stimulus type (photograph vs silhouette/illustration) and response mode. In all, results are mostly consistent with a spatial compatibility account of object-based CEs. Finally, analyses revealed moderation by trial and task structure, providing implications for study design.

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

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.

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

When participants classify pictures of objects as upright or inverted with a left or right keypress, responses are faster if the response location (left/right) corresponds with the location of a handle (left/right) than if it does not. This result has typically been attributed to a grasping affordance (automatic activation of muscles associated with grasping the object with the ipsilateral hand), but several findings have indicated instead that the effect is a spatial correspondence effect, much like the Simon effect for object location. Pappas (2014) reported evidence he interpreted as showing that spatial coding predominates with silhouettes of objects, whereas photographs of objects yield affordance-based effects. We conducted two experiments similar to those of Pappas, using frying pans as stimuli, with our two experiments differing in whether the entire object was centered on the display screen or the base was centered. When the objects were centered, a positive correspondence effect relative to the handle was evident for the silhouettes but a negative correspondence effect for the photographs. When the base was centered, the handle was clearly located to the left or right side of the display, and both silhouettes and photographs produced correspondence effects of similar size relative to the handle location. Despite the main results being counter to the grasping affordance hypothesis, response-time distribution analyses suggest that, instead of activating automatically at fast responses, an effector-specific component of the hypothesized type may come into play for responses that are selected after the handle location has been identified.

Chained Activation of the Motor System during Language Understanding

Two experiments were carried out to investigate whether and how one important characteristic of the motor system, that is its goal-directed organization in motor chains, is reflected in language processing. This possibility stems from the embodied theory of language, according to which the linguistic system re-uses the structures of the motor system. The participants were presented with nouns of common tools preceded by a pair of verbs expressing grasping or observational motor chains (i.e., grasp-to-move, grasp-to-use, look-at-to-grasp, and look-at-to-stare). They decided whether the tool mentioned in the sentence was the same as that displayed in a picture presented shortly after. A primacy of the grasp-to-use motor chain over the other motor chains in priming the participants' performance was observed in both the experiments. More interestingly, we found that the motor information evoked by the noun was modulated by the specific motor-chain expressed by the preceding verbs. Specifically, with the grasping chain aimed at using the tool, the functional motor information prevailed over the volumetric information, and vice versa with the grasping chain aimed at moving the tool (Experiment 2). Instead, the functional and volumetric information were balanced for those motor chains that comprise at least an observational act (Experiment 1). Overall our results are in keeping with the embodied theory of language and suggest that understanding sentences expressing an action directed toward a tool drives a chained activation of the motor system.