Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Short Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Responses are faster when the task-irrelevant orientation of a graspable object’s handle corresponds to the location of the response hand. Over the past decade, research has focused on dissociating between two competing accounts of this effect: One rooted in motoric object affordances and the other resting on attentional mechanisms (i.e., Simon effect). Following this avenue of inquiry, we conducted three experiments, in which subjects had to respond bimanually to grayscale photographs of frying pans and saucepans. In addition to horizontal orientation (control/leftward/rightward handles), Experiments 1 and 2 also manipulated the direction of exogenous attentional shifts (left/right) using laterally placed, colored markers within the objects. Both experiments yielded regular Simon effects based on the location of the colored markers. However, in stark contrast to previous research, a negative stimulus–response compatibility effect was obtained with regard to the orientation of the graspable handles. This reversed affordance effect was also observed using the original, unedited grayscale photographs (Experiment 3), which suggested that its occurrence cannot be attributed to the use of colored markers. These unexpected findings appear to support the idea that Simon effects result from automatic and exogenous attentional orienting mechanisms, whereas affordances arise from controlled and endogenous attentional processes. Such a top-down attentional account of affordance can accommodate the observed reversal of the effect in the context of task characteristics.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cho DT, Proctor RW (2010) The object-based Simon effect: grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36(4):853–861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iani C, Baroni G, Pellicano A, Nicoletti R (2011) On the relationship between affordance and Simon effects: are the effects really independent? J Cogn Psychol 23:121–131

    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(1):215–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lien MC, Gray D, Jardin E, Proctor RW (2014) Further evidence that object-based correspondence effects are primarily modulated by object location not by grasping affordance. J Cogn Psychol 26(6):679–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas Z (2014) Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: silhouettes and photographs. Cognition 133:716–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor RW, Miles JD (2014) Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects? In: Ross BH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol 60. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 227–266

  • Proctor RW, Vu K-PL (2006) Stimulus–response compatibility principle: data, theory, and application. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubichi S, Nicoletti R (2006) The Simon effect and handedness: evidence for a dominant-hand attentional bias in spatial coding. Percept Psychophys 68(7):1059–1069

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubichi S, Nicoletti R, Iani C, Umiltà C (1997) The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:1353–1364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg S (1969) The discovery of processing stages: extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychol 30:276–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symes E, Ellis R, Tucker M (2005) Dissociating object-based and space-based affordances. Vis Cogn 12:1337–1360

    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 

  • Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24(3):830–846

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yu AB, Abrams RA, Zacks JM (2014) Limits on action priming by pictures of objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 40(5):1861–1873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kiril Kostov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kostov, K., Janyan, A. Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects. Cogn Process 16 (Suppl 1), 287–291 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0708-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0708-7

Keywords

Navigation