Neutral affordances: Task conflict in the affordances task

Stop affordance task: a measure of the motor interference effect

The term affordance refers to the property or quality of an object that indicates the ways in which it could potentially be used. Affordances elicit automatic motor representations that sometimes differ from the current action representation, resulting in behavioural interference effects. This affordance-induces interference could result in automatic and involuntary behavioural inhibition, probably according to the same mechanism that controls the voluntary motor inhibition. Nevertheless, few studies have considered how voluntary response inhibition is modulated by affordance. In this study, we assess the effect of affordance on voluntary action inhibition using a stop-signal task with an affordance object as a Stop Signal. An image of a mug, with the handle orientated in the same or in the opposite direction of the hand recruited to respond at the target, was used as Stop Signal. Our results showed a reduction of the time necessary to withhold the response when the handle of the mug was pointed toward the hand pre-activated to respond. This effect indicates an increased inhibition due to the mismatch between the motor representation elicited by the affordance and the motor representation pre-activated by the target. This suggests a specific interference effect, reflected in an enhanced ability to inhibit an ongoing action.

Reliable affordances: A generative modeling approach for test-retest reliability of the affordances task

The affordances task serves as an important tool for the assessment of cognition and visuomotor functioning, and yet its test-retest reliability has not been established. In the affordances task, participants attend to a goal-directed task (e.g., classifying manipulable objects such as cups and pots) while suppressing their stimulus-driven, irrelevant reactions afforded by these objects (e.g., grasping their handles). This results in cognitive conflicts manifesting at the task level and the response level. In the current study, we assessed the reliability of the affordances task for the first time. While doing so, we referred to the "reliability paradox," according to which behavioral tasks that produce highly replicable group-level effects often yield low test-retest reliability due to the inadequacy of traditional correlation methods in capturing individual differences between participants. Alongside the simple test-retest correlations, we employed a Bayesian generative model that was recently demonstrated to result in a more precise estimation of test-retest reliability. Two hundred and ninety-five participants completed an online version of the affordances task twice, with a one-week gap. Performance on the online version replicated results obtained under in-lab administrations of the task. While the simple correlation method resulted in weak test-retest measures of the different effects, the generative model yielded a good reliability assessment. The current results support the utility of the affordances task as a reliable behavioral tool for the assessment of group-level and individual differences in cognitive and visuomotor functioning. The results further support the employment of generative modeling in the study of individual differences.

Is there a lower visual field advantage for object affordances? A registered report

It's been repeatedly shown that pictures of graspable objects can facilitate visual processing, even in the absence of reach-to-grasp actions, an effect often attributed to the concept of affordances. A classic demonstration of this is the handle compatibility effect, characterised by faster reaction times when the orientation of a graspable object's handle is compatible with the hand used to respond, even when the handle orientation is task-irrelevant. Nevertheless, it is debated whether the speeded reaction times are a result of affordances or spatial compatibility. First, we investigated whether we could replicate the handle compatibility effect while controlling for spatial compatibility. Participants (N = 68) responded with left or right-handed keypresses to whether the object was upright or inverted and, in separate blocks, whether the object was red or green. We failed to replicate the handle compatibility effect, with no significant difference between compatible and incompatible conditions, in both tasks. Second, we investigated whether there is a lower visual field (VF) advantage for the handle compatibility effect in line with what has been found for hand actions. A further 68 participants responded to object orientation presented either in the upper or lower VF. A significant handle compatibility effect was observed in the lower VF, but not the upper VF. This suggests that there is a lower VF advantage for affordances, possibly as the lower VF is where our actions most frequently occur. However, future studies should explore the impact of eye movements on the handle compatibility effect and tool affordances.

An Integrative Model for Understanding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Merging Cognitive Behavioral Theory with Insights from Clinical Neuroscience

Several models have been proposed for the emergence and maintenance of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Although these models have provided important insights and inspired treatment development, no single model has yet sufficiently accounted for the complexed phenotype of the disorder. In the current paper, we propose a novel model that integrates elements from cognitive behavioral models of OCD with neurocognitive approaches to the disorder. This Reciprocal Interaction Model (RIM) for OCD is based on two assumptions: (a) similar observed symptoms can stem from different etiological processes; and (b) neuropsychological deficits (such as reduced response inhibition and overreliance on the habit formation system) and cognitive behavioral processes (such as temporary reduction in anxiety after engaging in compulsive behaviors) mutually affect each other such that abnormalities in one system influence the second system and vice-versa-creating a vicious cycle of pathological processes. Indeed, the bidirectional inhibitory connection between anxiety/obsessions and executive control is at the heart of the model. We begin by briefly reviewing the current models for OCD. We then move on to describe the RIM, the supporting evidence for the model, the model's predictions, and potential clinical implications.