Abstract
There is an increasing evidence that the action properties of manipulable objects can play a role in object recognition, as objects with similar action properties can facilitate each other’s recognition [Helbig et al. Exp Brain Res 174:221–228, 2006]. However, it is unclear whether this modulation is driven by the actions involved in using the object or the grasps afforded by the objects, because these factors have been confounded in previous studies. Here, we attempted to disentangle the relative contributions of the action and grasp properties by using a priming paradigm in which action and grasp similarity between two objects were varied orthogonally. We found that target tools with similar grasp properties to the prime tool were named more accurately than those with dissimilar grasps. However, naming accuracy was not affected by the similarity of action properties between the prime and target tools. This suggests that knowledge about how an object is used is not automatically accessed when identifying a manipulable object. What are automatically accessed are the transformations necessary to interact directly with the object—i.e., the manner in which one grasps the object.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almeida J, Mahon BZ, Nakayama K, Caramazza A (2008) Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:15214–15218. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805867105
Almeida J, Mahon BZ, Caramazza A (2010) The role of the dorsal visual processing stream in tool identification. Psychol Sci 21:772–778. doi:10.1177/0956797610371343
Anderson SJ, Yamagishi N, Karavia V (2002) Attentional process link perception and action. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1225–1232. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1998
Boronat CB, Buxbaum LJ, Coslett HB, Tang K, Saffran EM, Kimberg DY, Detre JA (2005) Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cogn Brain Res 23:361–373. doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.11.001
Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357
Buxbaum LJ (2001) Ideomotor aparxia: a call to action. Neurocase 7:445–458. doi:10.1093/neucas/7.6.445
Buxbaum LJ, Saffran EM (2002) Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: dissociations in apraxic and non-apraxic subjects. Brain Lang 89:179–199. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00014-7
Chao LL, Martin A (2000) Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage 12:478–484. doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0635
Constantini M, Ambrosini E, Tieri G, Sinigaglia C, Committeri G (2010) Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Exp Brain Res 207:95–103. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2435-8
Ellis R, Tucker M (2000) Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects. Br J Psychol 91:451–471. doi:10.1348/000712600161934
Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston. doi:10.2307/989638
Goldenberg G (2009) Apraxia and the parietal lobes. Neuropsychologia 47:1449–1459. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.07.014
Grèzes J, Decety J (2002) Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia 40:212–222. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00089-6
Harris IM, Murray AM, Hayward WG, O’Callaghan C, Andrews S (in press) Repetition blindness reveals differences between the representation of manipulable and non-manipulable objects. J Exp Psychol Human
Helbig HB, Graf M, Kiefer M (2006) The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Exp Brain Res 174:221–228. doi:10.1007/s00221-006-0443-5
Helbig HB, Steinwender J, Graf M, Kiefer M (2010) Action observation can prime visual object recognition. Exp Brain Res 200:251–258. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1953-8
Kellenbach ML, Brett M, Patterson K (2003) Actions speak louder than functions: the importance of manipulability and action in tool representation. J Cogn Neurosci 15(1):30–46. doi:10.1162/089892903321107800
Kleiner M, Brainard D, Pelli D (2007) What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3. Perception 36 ECVP Abstract Supplement
Kroliczak G, Frey SH (2009) A common network in the left cerebral hemisphere represents planning of tool use pantomimes and familiar intransitive gestures at the hand-independent level. Cereb Cortex 19(10):2396–2410. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn261
Negri GA, Lunardelli A, Reverberi C, Gigli GL, Rumiati RI (2007) Degraded semantic knowledge and accurate object use. Cortex 43:376–388. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70463-5
Noppeney U (2009) The neural systems of tool and action semantics: a perspective from functional imaging. J Physiol Paris 102:40–49. doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.009
Osiruak F, Aubin G, Allain P, Jarry C, Richard I, Le Gall D (2008) Object utilization and object usage: a single-case study. Neurocase 14(2):169–183. doi:10.1080/13554790802108372
Osiurak F, Aubin G, Allain P, Jarry C, Etcharry-Bouyx F, Richard I, Le Gall D (2008) Different constraints on grip selection in brain-damaged patients: object use versus object transport. Neuropsychologia 46:2431–2434. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.018
Osiurak F, Jarry C, Le Gall D (2010) Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychol Rev 117(2):517–540. doi:10.1037/a0019004
Osiurak F, Jarry C, Le Gall D (2011) Re-examining the gesture engram hypothesis. New perspectives on apraxia of tool use. Neuropsychologia 49:299–312. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.041
Pappas Z, Mack A (2008) Potentiation of action by undetected affordant objects. Vis cogn 16(7):892–915. doi:10.1080/13506280701542185
Pelli DG (1997) The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10:437–442. doi:10.1163/156856897X00366
Randerath J, Li Y, Goldenberg G, Hermsdörfer J (2009) Grasping tools: effects of task and apraxia. Neuropsychologia 47:497–505. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.005
Tucker M, Ellis R (2004) Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychol 116:185–203. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1953-8
Vainio L, Ellis R, Tucker M, Symes E (2006) Manual asymmetries in visually primed grasping. Exp Brain Res 175:395–406. doi:10.1007/s00221-006-0378-x
Vingerhoets G, Vandamme K, Vercammen A (2009) Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain Cogn 69:481–489. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2008.10.003
Vingerhoets G, Vandekerckhove E, Honore P, Vandemaele P, Achten E (2011) Neural correlates of pantomiming familiar and unfamiliar tools: action semantics versus mechanical problem solving? Hum Brain Mapp 32(6):905–918. doi:10.1002/hbm.21078
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Australian Research Council Discovery Grant DP0879206. Irina Harris was supported by an ARC Future Fellowship. We are grateful to Nicole De Fina for assistance with data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McNair, N.A., Harris, I.M. Disentangling the contributions of grasp and action representations in the recognition of manipulable objects. Exp Brain Res 220, 71–77 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3116-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3116-6