Top

Gepubliceerd in:

22-01-2022 | Original Article

The visual size of graspable objects is needed to induce the potentiation of grasping behaviors even with verbal stimuli

Auteurs: Mohamed Halim Harrak, Loïc P. Heurley, Nicolas Morgado, Rocco Mennella, Vincent Dru

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2022

Abstract

Merely perceiving objects usually grasped with a power or a precision grip (e.g., an apple vs. a cherry) potentiate power-grip and precision-grip responses, respectively. According to the size-coding account, this potentiation effect is due to the compatibility between size codes associated with both stimuli and responses, rather than to the simulation of motor information stored at a conceptual level (i.e., the embodied account). At the stimulus level, size-coding would occur, because objects associated with a power grip are usually presented in a larger visual size than objects associated with a precision grip. However, this explanation is challenged by results, showing that reading nouns of objects associated with power or precision grip also leads to potentiation effects, even though the visual size of the displayed object is no longer perceived. Therefore, we designed three experiments to better understand this word-based potentiation effect and to investigate whether it relies on size codes. Our results showed a word-based potentiation effect only when the object nouns were interleaved with pictures depicting the objects in their typical visual size. We discuss the contributions of these results for both the size-coding account and the embodied account of the potentiation effect of grasping behaviors.

vorige artikel Sustained visual attention improves visuomotor timing

volgende artikel Beyond motion extrapolation: vestibular contribution to head-rotation-induced flash-lag effects

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Of note, potentiation effects have been explained via three different concepts: micro-affordances, motor simulation, and motor representations (for a discussion, see Chong & Proctor, 2020). In this article, we only used the concept of micro-affordances and motor simulation for a simplification.

We conducted our power analysis based on the potentiation effect reported by Tucker and Ellis (2004) for their Experiment 3. They said: “Averaged over both images and words the compatibility effect was highly significant for both measures of performance. Reaction times for compatible trials were on average 10.1 ms faster, F(1, 69) = 24.8, p < .001.” From this statement, we computed the corresponding \({\upeta }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)= .26 and its bias-corrected version \({\upomega }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)= .25 (e.g., Lakens, 2013, for a brief discussion on the advantages of \({\upomega }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\) over \({\upeta }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)). The results of the power analyses using \({\upeta }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)= .26 or \({\upomega }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)= .25 yielded very similar sample size (n = 26 vs. n = 27, respectively). We chose to report the results of the analysis conducted with the smallest effect size.

For each experiment, as well as for the between-experiment analysis, we run linear mixed models which largely confirmed ANOVA results. Detailed method and results are available in the “supplementary material”, specifically in Table S2 (results for the three experiments separately) and S3 (results for Experiments 1 and 2 combined). Raw data of all experiments are available online (see https://osf.io/fqhu5).

Obviously, in French, we did not use the words “APPLE” and “CHERRY”, but a similar reasoning applies to the French words we used (see Appendix 1).

American Psychological Association. (2016). Revision of Ethical Standard 3.04 of the Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, as amended 2010). The American Psychologist, 71(9), 900. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000102

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(1497), 1225–1232. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1998CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Azaad, S., Laham, S. M., & Shields, P. (2019). A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect. Cognition, 190, 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.028CrossRefPubMed

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149CrossRefPubMed

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639CrossRefPubMed

Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1281–1289. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0319CrossRef

Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3CrossRefPubMed

Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2015). Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00351CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E., & Cree, G. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.010CrossRefPubMed

Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E., & van Noordenne, M. (2021). Motor representations evoked by objects under varying action intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000876CrossRefPubMed

Chong, I., & Proctor, R. W. (2020). On the evolution of a radical concept: Affordances according to Gibson and their subsequent use and development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619868207CrossRefPubMed

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

Ellis, R., Tucker, M., Symes, E., & Vainio, L. (2007). Does selecting one visual object from several require inhibition of the actions associated with nonselected objects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(3), 670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.670CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146CrossRefPubMed

Ferri, F., Riggio, L., Gallese, V., & Costantini, M. (2011). Objects and their nouns in peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia, 49(13), 3519–3524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.001CrossRefPubMed

Flumini, A., Barca, L., Borghi, A. M., & Pezzulo, G. (2015). How do you hold your mouse? Tracking the compatibility effect between hand posture and stimulus size. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(6), 928–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0622-0CrossRefPubMed

García, A. M., & Ibáñez, A. (2016). A touch with words: Dynamic synergies between manual actions and language. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.04.022CrossRef

Gentilucci, M., & Campione, G. C. (2011). Do postures of distal effectors affect the control of actions of other distal effectors? Evidence for a system of interactions between hand and mouth. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019793CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gentilucci, M., Campione, G. C., Dalla Volta, R., & Bernardis, P. (2009). The observation of manual grasp actions affects the control of speech: A combined behavioral and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 47(14), 3190–3202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.020CrossRefPubMed

Grèzes, J., Tucker, M., Armony, J., Ellis, R., & Passingham, R. E. (2003). Objects automatically potentiate action: An fMRI study of implicit processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17(12), 2735–2740. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02695.xCrossRefPubMed

Guerineau, R., Heurley, L. P., Morgado, N., Brouillet, D., & Dru, V. (2021). Anticipating the magnitude of response outcomes can induce a potentiation effect for manipulable objects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01535-0CrossRefPubMed

Heurley, L. P., Brouillet, T., Coutté, A., & Morgado, N. (2020). Size coding of alternative responses is sufficient to induce a potentiation effect with manipulable objects. Cognition, 205, 104377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104377CrossRefPubMed

Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H., & Ryan, C. S. (2017). Data Analysis: A Model Comparison Approach to Regression, ANOVA, and Beyond (3rd ed.). Routledge.CrossRef

Kostov, K., & Janyan, A. (2021). Critical bottom-up attentional factors in the handle orientation effect: Asymmetric luminance transients and object-center eccentricity relative to fixation. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(4), 1685–1705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01329-wCrossRefPubMed

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(863), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863CrossRef

Makris, S., Hadar, A. A., & Yarrow, K. (2011). Viewing objects and planning actions: On the potentiation of grasping behaviours by visual objects. Brain and Cognition, 77(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.08.002CrossRefPubMed

Masaki, H., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology, 37(4), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3740464CrossRefPubMed

Masson, M. E. (2015). Toward a deeper understanding of embodiment. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 69(2), 159. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000055CrossRefPubMed

Matheson, H. E., & Barsalou, L. W. (2018). Embodiment and grounding in cognitive neuroscience. WileyIn S. L. Thompson-Schill (Ed.), The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (Vol. 4, pp. 357–383)

Matheson, H. E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2019). Investigating grounded conceptualization: Stimulus-response compatibility for tool handles is due to spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(4), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000616CrossRefPubMed

Matheson, H. E., White, N., & McMullen, P. A. (2014a). Testing the embodied account of object naming: A concurrent motor task affects naming artifacts and animals. Acta Psychologica, 145, 33–43.CrossRef

Matheson, H. E., White, N. C., & McMullen, P. A. (2014b). A test of the embodied simulation theory of object perception: Potentiation of responses to artifacts and animals. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78(4), 465–482.CrossRef

New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195598CrossRef

Niemi, P., & Naatanen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 133–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.133CrossRef

Osiurak, F., & Badets, A. (2016). Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. Psychological Review, 123(5), 534.CrossRef

Pecher, D., Roest, S., & Zeelenberg, R. (2019). The effect of grasp compatibility in go/no-go and two-choice tasks. Memory & Cognition, 47(6), 1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00917-5CrossRef

Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Maiorana, N. V., Horoufchin, H., Rubichi, S., Lugli, L., et al. (2018). Correspondence effect driven by salient visual asymmetries in integral object stimuli. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84, 728–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1079-3CrossRefPubMed

Pellicano, A., Lugli, L., Binkofski, F., Rubichi, S., Iani, C., & Nicoletti, R. (2019). The unimanual handle-to-hand correspondence effect: Evidence for a location coding account. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 83(7), 1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1009-4CrossRefPubMed

Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R. (2002). SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9(4–5), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280143000575CrossRef

Proctor, R. W., & Miles, J. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects? Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 60, pp. 227–266). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800090-8.00006-8CrossRef

Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2006). Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles. CRC press Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203022795

Proctor, R. W., Miles, J. D., & Baroni, G. (2011). Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0053-5CrossRef

Roest, S. A., Pecher, D., Naeije, L., & Zeelenberg, R. (2016). Alignment effects in beer mugs: Automatic action activation or response competition? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(6), 1665–1680. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1130-7CrossRef

Sakreida, K., Effnert, I., Thill, S., Menz, M. M., Jirak, D., Eickhoff, C. R., Ziemke, T., Eickhoff, S. B., Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2016). Affordance processing in segregated parieto-frontal dorsal stream sub-pathways. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.032CrossRef

Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027448CrossRefPubMed

Taylor, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2010). Grasping spheres, not planets. Cognition, 115(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.006CrossRefPubMed

Tiainen, M., Tiippana, K., Vainio, M., Komeilipoor, N., & Vainio, L. (2017). Interaction in planning vocalizations and grasping. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1590–1602. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1195416CrossRefPubMed

Tiainen, M., Tiippana, K., Vainio, M., Peromaa, T., Komeilipoor, N., & Vainio, L. (2016). Selective influences of precision and power grips on speech categorization. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0151688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151688CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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), 830–846. 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

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.01.004CrossRefPubMed

Vainio, L., Schulman, M., Tiippana, K., & Vainio, M. (2013). Effect of syllable articulation on precision and power grip performance. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e53061. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053061CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vainio, L., Tiainen, M., Tiippana, K., & Vainio, M. (2014). Shared processing of planning articulatory gestures and grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 232(7), 2359–2368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3932-yCrossRefPubMed

Veale, J. F. (2014). Edinburgh handedness inventory–short form: a revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 19(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2013.783045CrossRef

Welford, W. T., Brebner, J. M., & Kirby, N. (1980). Reaction times. Stanford University.

Xiong, A., Proctor, R. W., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2019). Visual salience, not the graspable part of a pictured eating utensil, grabs attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(5), 1454–1463. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01679-7CrossRef

Titel: The visual size of graspable objects is needed to induce the potentiation of grasping behaviors even with verbal stimuli
Auteurs: Mohamed Halim Harrak
Loïc P. Heurley
Nicolas Morgado
Rocco Mennella
Vincent Dru
Publicatiedatum: 22-01-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01635-x

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2022

The impact of stimulus format on task inhibition during task switching

Motor restrictions impair divergent thinking during walking and during sitting

Sustained visual attention improves visuomotor timing

Multisensory integration of musical emotion perception in singing

The effect of strategy game types on inhibition

Preview frequency effects in reading: evidence from Chinese