Top

Gepubliceerd in:

19-05-2021 | Original Article

The influence of cooperative action intention on object affordance: evidence from the perspective-taking ability of individuals

Auteurs: Yanyan Gong, Yongchun Wang, Qiang Chen, Jingjing Zhao, Nan Zhao, Meng Zou, An Cao, Yonghui Wang

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2022

Abstract

In complex interactive scenarios, action understanding lies at the heart of social interactions. Nevertheless, the ability to understand action intention may differ among people. The current study distinguished two groups of participants with different social intention-understanding abilities (high and low) based on a perspective-taking task to investigate the influence of social intention on object affordance under conditions of individual and cooperative action intention. In the affordance perception experiment, participants were shown a video with the presenter reaching to grasp an object in different grips and asked to classify objects into kitchen or non-kitchen items by pressing the left- or right-hand button under the two intention conditions. The results showed that the object affordance effects were modulated by the participants’ understanding of social intention in the interactive scenarios. Specifically, the object affordance effects were observed only in the high perspective-taking ability group under the condition of cooperative action intention. However, under the condition of individual action intention, object affordance effects were shown in both the high and low perspective-taking ability groups, and the difference between the two groups was not significant. This study suggests that processing of object affordance depends greatly on the contextual correspondence of perception and action and that the understanding of cooperative action intention can affect the activation of object affordance.

vorige artikel Do our eyes mirror our thought patterns? A study on the influence of convergent and divergent thinking on eye movement

volgende artikel Here’s looking at you: eye gaze and collaborative recall

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Anderson, S. J., Yamagishi, N., & Karavia, V. (2002). Attentional processes link perception and action. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1225–1232.

Bach, P., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2011). The predictive mirror: interactions of mirror and affordance processes during action observation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0029-x

Bach, P., Nicholson, T., & Hudson, M. (2014). The affordance-matching hypothesis: How objects guide action understanding and prediction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(20), 254. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00254CrossRefPubMed

Becchio, C., Sartori, L., Bulgheroni, M., & Castiello, U. (2008). Both your intention and mine are reflected in the kinematics of my reach- to-grasp movement. Cognition, 106, 894–912CrossRef

Borghi, A. M. (2018). Affordances, context and sociality. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02044-1CrossRef

Borghi, A. M., Flumini, A., Natraj, N., & Wheaton, L. A. (2012). One hand, two objects: emergence of affordance in contexts. Brain & Cognition, 80(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.04.007

Daniel, B., & Michael, M. (2006). Gestural knowledge evoked by objects as part of conceptual representations. Aphasiology, 20(9), 1112–1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030600741667

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 Psychologica, 122(1), 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.10.004CrossRefPubMed

Edwards, M. G., Humphreys, G. W., & Castiello, U. (2003). Motor facilitation following action observation: A behavioural study in prehensile action. Brain and Cognition, 53(3), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00210-0CrossRefPubMed

Ellis, R., Dan, S., Bridgeman, J., May, B., Tucker, M., & Hyne, A. (2013). Bodies and other visual objects: The dialectics of reaching toward objects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0391-yCrossRefPubMed

Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161934CrossRefPubMed

Era, V., Aglioti, S. M., & Candidi, M. (2020). Inhibitory theta burst stimulation highlights the role of Left aIPS and right TPJ during complementary and imitative human-avatar interactions in cooperative and competitive scenarios. Cerebral Cortex, 30(3), 1677–1687CrossRef

Fini, C., Bardi, L., Epifanio, A., Committeri, G., Moors, A., & Brass, M. (2017b). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the inferior frontal cortex affects the “social scaling” of extrapersonal space depending on perspective-taking ability. Experimental Brain Research, 235(3), 673–679CrossRef

Fini, C., Bardi, L., Troje, N. F., Committeri, G., & Brass, M. (2017a). Priming biological motion changes extrapersonal space categorization. Acta Psychologica, 172, 77–83CrossRef

Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E.R. (1986). Development of knowledge about the appearance-reality distinc-tion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51, i–v, 1–87.

Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006). How we predict what other people are going to do. Brain Research, 1079, 36–46CrossRef

Gandolfo, M., Era, V., Tieri, G., Sacheli, L. M., & Candidi, M. (2019). Interactor’s body shape does not affect visuo-motor interference effects during motor coordination. Acta Psychologica, 196, 42–50CrossRef

Georgiou, I., Becchio, C., Glover, S., & Castiello, U. (2007). Different action patterns for cooperative and competitive behaviour. Cognition, 102, 415–433CrossRef

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin.

Gigliotti, M. F., Sampaio, A., Bartolo, A., et al. (2020). The combined effects of motor and social goals on the kinematics of object-directed motor action. Science and Reports, 10, 6369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63314-yCrossRef

Girardi, G., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Context effects on the processing of action-relevant object features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 36(2), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017180CrossRef

Kessler, K., & Rutherford, H. (2010). The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 213CrossRef

Lewkowicz, D., Quesque, F., Coello, Y., & Delevoye-Turrell, Y. (2015). Reading motor intention through mental imagery. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01175.

Lindemann, O., Stenneken, P., Van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2006). Semantic activation in action planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 633. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.633CrossRefPubMed

Loach, D., Frischen, A., Bruce, N., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2008). An attentional mechanism for selecting appropriate actions afforded by graspable objects. Psychological Science, 19, 1253–1257CrossRef

Ocampo, B., & Kritikos, A. (2010). Placing actions in context: Motor facilitation following observation of identical and non-identical manual acts. Experimental Brain Research, 201(4), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-2089-6CrossRefPubMed

Ocampo, B., Kritikos, A., & Cunnington, R. (2011). How frontoparietal brain regions mediate imitative and complementary actions: An fmri study. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e26945. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026945CrossRefPubMed

Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R. (2002). S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9, 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280143000575CrossRef

Quesque, F., & Coello, Y. (2014). For your eyes only: Effect of confederate’s eye level on reach-to-grasp action. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01407CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Quesque, F., Delevoye-Turrell, Y., & Coello, Y. (2015). Facilitation effect of observed motor deviants in a cooperative motor task: Evidence for direct perception of social intention in action. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1451–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1083596CrossRefPubMed

Quesque, F., Lewkowicz, D., Delevoye-Turrell, Y. N., & Coello, Y. (2013). Effects of social intention on movement kinematics in cooperative actions. Frontiers in Neurorobotics. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2013.00014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2001). Effect of subjective perspective taking during simulation of action: a pet investigation of agency. Nature Neuroscience, 4(5), 546. https://doi.org/10.1038/87510CrossRefPubMed

Sartori, L., Becchio, C., & Castiello, U. (2011a). Cues to intention: The role of movement information. Cognition, 119(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.014CrossRefPubMed

Sartori, L., Cavallo, A., Bucchioni, G., & Castiello, U. (2011b). Corticospinal excitability is specifically modulated by the social dimension of observed actions. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2650-yCrossRefPubMed

Sartori, L., Bucchioni, G., & Castiello, U. (2013). When emulation becomes reciprocity. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 8(6), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss044CrossRef

Sartori, L., Cavallo, A., Bucchioni, G., & Castiello, U. (2012). From simulation to reciprocity: The case of complementary actions. Social Neuroscience, 7(2), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2011.586579CrossRefPubMed

Scorolli, C., Miatton, M., Wheaton, L. A., & Borghi, A. M. (2014). I give you a cup, I get a cup: a kinematic study on social intention. Neuropsychologia, 57(1), 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.006CrossRefPubMed

Shaeffer, E. M., Libby, L. K., & Eibach, R. P. (2015). Changing visual perspective changes processing style: A distinct pathway by which imagery guides cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 534. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000073CrossRef

Shelton, A. L., Clements-Stephens, A. M., Lam, W. Y., Pak, D. M., & Murray, A. J. (2012). Should social savvy equal good spatial skills? The interaction of social skills with spatial perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 199. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024617CrossRef

Song, X., Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2014). Correspondence effects with torches: Grasping affordance or visual feature asymmetry? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 665–675CrossRef

Surtees, A., Samson, D., & Apperly, I. (2016). Unintentional perspective-taking calculates whether something is seen, but not how it is seen. Cognition, 148, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.010CrossRefPubMed

Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193875CrossRef

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.830CrossRefPubMed

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280042000144CrossRef

Vainio, L., Symes, E., Ellis, R., Tucker, M., & Ottoboni, G. (2008). On the relations between action planning, object identification, and motor representations of observed actions and objects. Cognition, 108(2), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.007CrossRefPubMed

Van Elk, M., Van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Action semantic knowledge about objects is supported by functional motor activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 35(4), 1118–1128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015024CrossRefPubMed

Yoon, E. Y., & Humphreys, G. W. (2005). Direct and indirect effects of action on object classification. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1131–1146. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193218·Source:PubMedCrossRef

Titel: The influence of cooperative action intention on object affordance: evidence from the perspective-taking ability of individuals
Auteurs: Yanyan Gong
Yongchun Wang
Qiang Chen
Jingjing Zhao
Nan Zhao
Meng Zou
An Cao
Yonghui Wang
Publicatiedatum: 19-05-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01523-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2022

Effects of intention in the imitation of sung and spoken pitch

Learning of across- and within-task contingencies modulates partial-repetition costs in dual-tasking

Do our eyes mirror our thought patterns? A study on the influence of convergent and divergent thinking on eye movement

Threat-relevant stimuli cannot be better detected by preschoolers in an inattentional blindness task

Here’s looking at you: eye gaze and collaborative recall

Anticipating the magnitude of response outcomes can induce a potentiation effect for manipulable objects