Top

Gepubliceerd in:

23-03-2022 | Original Article

The visual encoding of graspable unfamiliar objects

Auteurs: Giovanni Federico, François Osiurak, Maria Antonella Brandimonte, Marco Salvatore, Carlo Cavaliere

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2023

Abstract

We explored by eye-tracking the visual encoding modalities of participants (N = 20) involved in a free-observation task in which three repetitions of ten unfamiliar graspable objects were administered. Then, we analysed the temporal allocation (t = 1500 ms) of visual-spatial attention to objects’ manipulation (i.e., the part aimed at grasping the object) and functional (i.e., the part aimed at recognizing the function and identity of the object) areas. Within the first 750 ms, participants tended to shift their gaze on the functional areas while decreasing their attention on the manipulation areas. Then, participants reversed this trend, decreasing their visual-spatial attention to the functional areas while fixing the manipulation areas relatively more. Crucially, the global amount of visual-spatial attention for objects’ functional areas significantly decreased as an effect of stimuli repetition while remaining stable for the manipulation areas, thus indicating stimulus familiarity effects. These findings support the action reappraisal theoretical approach, which considers object/tool processing as abilities emerging from semantic, technical/mechanical, and sensorimotor knowledge integration.

vorige artikel The role of implicit motor simulation on action verb memory

volgende artikel Impact of an overweight body representation in virtual reality on locomotion in a motor imagery task

The spatial disposition we used in this study represents the worst condition should one wish to emphasize semantic effects in modulating the temporal allocation of visual-spatial attention. Hence, we chose the worst experimental scenario with respect to the action reappraisal (Federico & Brandimonte, 2019).

Almeida, J., Fintzi, A. R., & Mahon, B. Z. (2013). Tool manipulation knowledge is retrieved by way of the ventral visual object processing pathway. Cortex, 49(9), 2334–2344.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Ambrosini, E., & Costantini, M. (2017). Body posture differentially impacts on visual attention towards tool, graspable, and non-graspable objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 360.PubMed

Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., Boshyan, J., Schmid, A. M., Dale, A. M., Hämäläinen, M. S., Marinkovic, K., Schacter, D. L., Rosen, B. R., & Halgren, E. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(2), 449–454.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Bortoletto, M., & Cunnington, R. (2010). Motor timing and motor sequencing contribute differently to the preparation for voluntary movement. NeuroImage, 49(4), 3338–3348.PubMedCrossRef

Caspers, S., Geyer, S., Schleicher, A., Mohlberg, H., Amunts, K., & Zilles, K. (2006). The human inferior parietal cortex: Cytoarchitectonic parcellation and interindividual variability. NeuroImage, 33(2), 430–448.PubMedCrossRef

Chen, Q., Garcea, F. E., Jacobs, R. A., & Mahon, B. Z. (2018). Abstract representations of object-directed action in the left inferior parietal lobule. Cerebral Cortex, 28(6), 2162–2174.PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.CrossRef

Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.CrossRef

De Bellis, F., Magliacano, A., Sagliano, L., Conson, M., Grossi, D., & Trojano, L. (2020). Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: Evidence from rTMS. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84(4), 1006–1019.PubMedCrossRef

Decroix, J., & Kalénine, S. (2019). What first drives visual attention during the recognition of object-directed actions? The role of kinematics and goal information. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2400–2409.CrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.PubMedCrossRef

Federico, G., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2019). Tool and object affordances: an ecological eye-tracking study. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103582.PubMedCrossRef

Federico, G., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2020). Looking to recognise: The pre-eminence of semantic over sensorimotor processing in human tool use. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–16.CrossRef

Federico, G., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2022). Il ruolo del ragionamento e dell’elaborazione semantica nell’uso di utensili: La prospettiva integrata dell’action reappraisal. TOPIC-Temi Di Psicologia Dell’ordine Degli Psicologi Della Campania, 1(1), 10–53240.

Federico, G., Ferrante, D., Marcatto, F., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2021a). How the fear of COVID-19 changed the way we look at human faces. PeerJ, 9, e11380.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Federico, G., Osiurak, F., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2021b). Hazardous tools: the emergence of reasoning in human tool use. Psychological Research, 85, 3108–3118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01466-2.

Federico, G., Osiurak, F., Reynaud, E., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2021c). Semantic congruency effects of prime words on tool visual exploration. Brain and Cognition, 152, 105758.PubMedCrossRef

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA, 1(2), 67–82.

Goldenberg, G., & Spatt, J. (2009). The neural basis of tool use. Brain, 132(6), 1645–1655.PubMedCrossRef

Gomez, M. A., Skiba, R. M., & Snow, J. C. (2018). Graspable objects grab attention more than images do. Psychological Science, 29(2), 206–218.PubMedCrossRef

Grezes, J., & Decety, J. (2002). Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a Neuroimaging Study. Neuropsychologia, 40(2), 212–222.PubMedCrossRef

Handy, T. C., Grafton, S. T., Shroff, N. M., Ketay, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience, 6(4), 421–427.PubMedCrossRef

Horst, J. S., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The Novel Object and Unusual Name (NOUN) Database: A collection of novel images for use in experimental research. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1393–1409.PubMedCrossRef

Humphreys, G. W., Kumar, S., Yoon, E. Y., Wulff, M., Roberts, K. L., & Riddoch, M. J. (2013). Attending to the possibilities of action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences, 368(1628), 20130059.CrossRef

Humphreys, G. F., Lambon Ralph, M. A. L., & Simons, J. S. (2021). A unifying account of angular gyrus contributions to episodic and semantic cognition. Trends in Neurosciences., 44, 452–463.PubMedCrossRef

Ishibashi, R., Pobric, G., Saito, S., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2016). The neural network for tool-related cognition: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of 70 neuroimaging contrasts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3–4), 241–256.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Koechlin, E., & Summerfield, C. (2007). An information theoretical approach to prefrontal executive function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 229–235.PubMedCrossRef

Lambon Ralph, M. A., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42–55.CrossRef

Lesourd, M., Servant, M., Baumard, J., Reynaud, E., Ecochard, C., Medjaoui, F. T., Bartolo, A., & Osiurak, F. (2021). Semantic and action tool knowledge in the brain: identifying common and distinct networks. Neuropsychologia, 159, 107918.PubMedCrossRef

Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.CrossRef

Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2007). Programming tool-use actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(3), 692.PubMed

Masson, M. E., Bub, D. N., & Breuer, A. T. (2011). Priming of reach and grasp actions by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1470.PubMed

Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46(3), 774–785.PubMedCrossRef

Mirman, D. (2014). Growth curve analysis: A hands-on tutorial on using multilevel regression to analyze time course data. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 36, No. 36).

Myachykov, A., Ellis, R., Cangelosi, A., & Fischer, M. H. (2013). Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects. Experimental Brain Research, 229(4), 545–559.PubMedCrossRef

Naish, K. R., Reader, A. T., Houston-Price, C., Bremner, A. J., & Holmes, N. P. (2013). To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences. Experimental Brain Research, 225(2), 261–275.PubMedCrossRef

Natraj, N., Pella, Y. M., Borghi, A. M., & Wheaton, L. A. (2015). The visual encoding of tool–object affordances. Neuroscience, 310, 512–527.PubMedCrossRef

Nicholson, T., Roser, M., & Bach, P. (2017). Understanding the goals of everyday instrumental actions is primarily linked to object, not motor-kinematic, information: Evidence from fMRI. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Osiurak, F., & Badets, A. (2014). Pliers, not fingers: Tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm. Cognition, 130(1), 66–73.PubMedCrossRef

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.PubMedCrossRef

Osiurak, F., & Federico, G. (2021). Four ways of (mis-) conceiving embodiment in tool use. Synthese, 199, 3853–3879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02960-1.

Osiurak, F., Federico, G., Brandimonte, M. A., Reynaud, E., & Lesourd, M. (2020). On the temporal dynamics of tool use. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.579378.

Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y., & Badets, A. (2017). What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 403–417.CrossRef

Papoutsaki, A., Sangkloy, P., Laskey, J., Daskalova, N., Huang, J., & Hays, J. (2016). WebGazer: Scalable webcam eye tracking using user interactions. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence-IJCAI 2016.

Pupíková, M., Šimko, P., Gajdoš, M., & Rektorová, I. (2021). Modulation of working memory and resting-state fMRI by tDCS of the right frontoparietal network. Neural Plasticity. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5594305CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Reynaud, E., Lesourd, M., Navarro, J., & Osiurak, F. (2016). On the neurocognitive origins of human tool use: A critical review of neuroimaging data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 64, 421–437.CrossRef

Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Edwards, S., Baker, T., & Willson, K. (2003). Seeing the action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6(1), 82–89.PubMedCrossRef

Rizzolatti, G., & Matelli, M. (2003). Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: Anatomy and functions. Experimental Brain Research, 153(2), 146–157.PubMedCrossRef

Roberts, K. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2010). Action relationships concatenate representations of separate objects in the ventral visual system. NeuroImage, 52(4), 1541–1548.PubMedCrossRef

Rothkegel, L. O., Trukenbrod, H. A., Schütt, H. H., Wichmann, F. A., & Engbert, R. (2017). Temporal evolution of the central fixation bias in scene viewing. Journal of Vision, 17(13), 3–3.PubMedCrossRef

Semmelmann, K., & Weigelt, S. (2018). Online webcam-based eye tracking in cognitive science: A first look. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 451–465.PubMedCrossRef

Shapiro, L. (2019). Embodied cognition. Routledge.CrossRef

Tamaki, Y., Nobusako, S., Takamura, Y., Miyawaki, Y., Terada, M., & Morioka, S. (2020). Effects of tool novelty and action demands on gaze searching during tool observation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3060.CrossRef

Thill, S., Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., Ziemke, T., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 491–521.CrossRef

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.PubMed

Van Der Linden, L., Mathôt, S., & Vitu, F. (2015). The role of object affordances and center of gravity in eye movements toward isolated daily-life objects. Journal of Vision, 15(5), 8–8.PubMedCrossRef

Van Elk, M., Van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Conceptual knowledge for understanding other’s actions is organized primarily around action goals. Experimental Brain Research, 189(1), 99–107.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Wurm, M. F., & Caramazza, A. (2019). Distinct roles of temporal and frontoparietal cortex in representing actions across vision and language. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–10.CrossRef

Titel: The visual encoding of graspable unfamiliar objects
Auteurs: Giovanni Federico
François Osiurak
Maria Antonella Brandimonte
Marco Salvatore
Carlo Cavaliere
Publicatiedatum: 23-03-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01673-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2023

Temporal learning in the suprasecond range: insights from cognitive style

Attentional capture in emotion comparison is orientation independent

A Bayesian computational model to investigate expert anticipation of a seemingly unpredictable ball bounce

The role of implicit motor simulation on action verb memory

The influence of Facebook intrusion and task context on cognitive control

Selective effects of focusing on spatial details in episodic future thinking for self-relevant positive events