Skip to main content
Log in

Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two experiments investigated (1) how activation of manual affordances is triggered by visual and linguistic cues to manipulable objects and (2) whether graspable object parts play a special role in this process. Participants pressed a key to categorize manipulable target objects copresented with manipulable distractor objects on a computer screen. Three factors were varied in Experiment 1: (1) the target’s and (2) the distractor’s handles’ orientation congruency with the lateral manual response and (3) the Visual Focus on one of the objects. In Experiment 2, a linguistic cue factor was added to these three factors—participants heard the name of one of the two objects prior to the target display onset. Analysis of participants’ motor and oculomotor behaviour confirmed that perceptual and linguistic cues potentiated activation of grasp affordances. Both target- and distractor-related affordance effects were modulated by the presence of visual and linguistic cues. However, a differential visual attention mechanism subserved activation of compatibility effects associated with target and distractor objects. We also registered an independent implicit attention attraction effect from objects’ handles, suggesting that graspable parts automatically attract attention during object viewing. This effect was further amplified by visual but not linguistic cues, thus providing initial evidence for a recent hypothesis about differential roles of visual and linguistic information in potentiating stable and variable affordances (Borghi in Language and action in cognitive neuroscience. Psychology Press, London, 2012).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of course, upon hearing cup one would not only represent its typical shape and weight but also assume that a typical cup has a handle. However, what would not be available from hearing cup is how this handle is oriented because the semantic information in cup does not cue a particular handle orientation and/or location. A richer linguistic cue (e.g., cup with a handle on the left) should, in principle, activate both stable and variable affordances.

References

  • 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 47:1600–1608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosini E, Scorolli C, Borghi AM, Costantini M (2012) Which body for embodied cognition? Affordance and language within actual and perceived reaching space. Conscious Cogn 21:1551–1557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson SJ, Yamagishi N, Karavia V (2002) Attentional processes link perception and action. Proc R Soc Ser B 269:1225–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annett M (1970) A classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br J Psychol 61:303–321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou LW (2008) Grounded cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:617–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi AM (2012) Action language comprehension affordances and goals. In: Coello Y, Bartolo A (eds) Language and action in cognitive neuroscience. Psychology Press, London, pp 531–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi AM, Riggio L (2009) Sentence comprehension and simulation of object temporary canonical and stable affordances. Brain Res 1253:117–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bub DN, Masson MEJ (2010) Grasping beer mugs: on the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:341–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bub DN, Masson MEJ, Cree GS (2008) Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition 106:27–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini M, Ambrosini E, Scorolli C, Borghi AM (2011) When objects are close to me: affordances in the peripersonal space. Psychon Bull Rev 18:32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craighero L, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G, Umiltà C (1999) Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1673–1692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Craighero L, Bello A, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G (2002) Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia 40:492–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Creem SH, Proffitt DR (2001) Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:218–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Derbyshire N, Ellis R, Tucker M (2006) The potentiation of two components of the reach-to-grasp action during object categorisation in visual memory. Acta Psychol 122(1):74–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • di Pellegrino G, Rafal R, Tipper SP (2005) Implicitly evoked actions modulate visual selection: evidence from parietal extinction. Curr Biol 15(16):469–1472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis R, Tucker M (2000) Micro-affordance: the potentiation of actions by seen objects. Br J Psychol 91:451–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis R, Tucker M, Symes E, Vainio L (2007) Does selecting one visual object from several require inhibition of the actions associated with non-selected objects? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:670–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferri F, Riggio L, Gallese V, Costantini M (2011) Objects and their nouns in peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia 49:3519–3524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer B, Breitmeyer B (1987) Mechanisms of visual attention revealed by saccadic eye movements. Neuropsychologia 25:73–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer MH, Dahl C (2007) The time course of visuo-motor affordances. Exp Brain Res 176(3):519–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover S, Dixon P (2002) Semantics affect the planning but not control of grasping. Exp Brain Res 146:383–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glover S, Rosenbaum DA, Graham J, Dixon P (2004) Grasping the meaning of words. Exp Brain Res 154:103–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale MA (2011) Transforming vision into action. Vis Res 51:1567–1587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Handy TC, Grafton ST, Shroff NM, Ketay S, Gazzaniga MS (2003) Graspable objects grasp attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nat Neurosci 6:421–427

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Handy TC, Borg JS, Turk DJ, Tipper CM, Grafton ST, Gazzaniga MS (2005) Placing a tool in the spotlight: spatial attention modulates visuomotor responses in cortex. NeuroImage 26:266–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel B (1993) The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychol Res 55:208–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys GW, Yoon EY, Kumar S, Lestou V, Kitadono K, Roberts KL, Riddoch MJ (2010) The interaction of attention and action: from seeing action to acting on perception. Br J Psychol 101:185–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky RL, Pellegrino JW, McCloskey BP, Doherty S (1989) Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgments. J Mem Lang 28:56–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostov K, Janyan A (2012) The role of attention in the affordance effect: can we afford to ignore it? Cogn Process 13:S215–S218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann O, Stenneken P, van Schie H, Bekkering H (2006) Semantic activation in action planning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(3):633–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loach D, Bruce N, Tsotsos JK (2008) An attentional mechanism for selecting appropriate actions afforded by graspable objects. Psychol Sci 19:1253–1257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin A (2007) The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol 58:25–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Masson MEJ, Bub DN, Newton-Taylor M (2008a) Language-based access to gestural components of conceptual knowledge. Q J Exp Psychol 71:869–882

    Google Scholar 

  • Masson MEJ, Bub DN, Warren CM (2008b) Kicking calculators: contribution of embodied representations to sentence comprehension. J Mem Lang 59:256–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels CF (1989) S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand. Q J Exp Psychol 41(2):263–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels CF (1993) Destination compatibility affordances and coding rules—a reply. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19(5):1121–1127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann E, DeSchepper BG (1992) An inhibition-based fan effect: evidence for an active suppression mechanism in selective attention. Can J Psychol 46:1–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas Z, Mack A (2008) Potentiation of action by undetected affordant objects. Vis Cognit 16(7):892–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips JC, Ward R (2002) S-r correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Vis Cognit 9(4–5):540–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner MI, Cohen Y (1984) Components of visual orienting. In: Bouma H, Bowhui DG (eds) Attention and performance, vol X. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 531–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggio L, Patteri I, Oppo A, Buccino G, Umilta C (2006) The role of affordances in inhibition of return. Psychon Bull Rev 13:1085–1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riggio C, Iani E, Gherri F, Benatti S, Rubichi R, Nicoletti R (2008) The role of attention in the occurrence of the affordance effect. Acta Psychol 127:449–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth HL, Lora AN, Heilman KM (2002) Effects of monocular viewing and eye dominance on spatial attention. Brain 125:2023–2035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuch S, Bayliss AP, Klein C, Tipper SP (2010) Attention modulates motor system activation during action observation: evidence for inhibitory rebound. Exp Brain Res 205:235–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singhal A, Culham JC, Chinellato E, Goodale MA (2007) Dual-task interference is greater in delayed grasping than in visually guided grasping. J Vis 7(5):1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Symes E, Tucker M, Ellis R, Vainio L, Ottoboni G (2008) Grasp preparation improves change detection for congruent objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34(4):854–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Symes E, Ottoboni G, Tucker M, Ellis R, Tessari A (2010) When motor attention improves selective attention: the dissociating role of saliency. Q J Exp Psychol 63(7):1387–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thill S, Caligiore D, Borghi AM, Ziemke T, Baldassarre G (2013) Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: an integrative review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37:491–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Weaver B, Cameron S, Brehaut JC, Bastedo J (1991) Inhibitory mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: time course and disruption. J Exp Psychol. Learn Mem Cognit 17(4):681–692

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Paul MA, Hayes AE (2006) Vision for action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychon Bull Rev 13(3):493–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tschentscher N, Fischer MH (2008) Grasp cueing and joint attention. Exp Brain Res (Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Expérimentation cérébrale) 190(4):493–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker M, Ellis R (2001) The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Vis Cognit 8:769–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker M, Ellis R (2004) Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychol 116:185–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vainio L, Ellis R, Tucker M (2007) The role of visual attention in action priming. Q J Exp Psychol 60:241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the EPSRC Grant EP/F026471.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andriy Myachykov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Myachykov, A., Ellis, R., Cangelosi, A. et al. Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects. Exp Brain Res 229, 545–559 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3616-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3616-z

Keywords

Navigation