8. Do we access object manipulability while we categorize? Evidence from reaction time studies

In two experiments we investigate whether different decision tasks were influenced by object manipulability. In Experiment 1, participants had to categorize objects represented by drawings or by words into artefacts or natural kinds. Natural objects received faster responses than artefacts, probably because the latter activate functional information that interferes with task responses. In Experiment 2, manipulability was made relevant to the task by asking participants to categorize items into two categories depending on whether or not they could be picked up and put inside a backpack. The disadvantage of artefacts over natural kinds was still found. Intriguingly, now an effect of manipulability was also found, but only with natural kinds, probably due to the fact that they convey information associated both with action (“how”) and function (“what for”). The same pattern of results found with drawings and words suggests that also words activate motor information on how to grasp objects.

[1]  A. Borghi Object concepts and action: extracting affordances from objects parts. , 2004, Acta psychologica.

[2]  J. Mazziotta,et al.  Mapping motor representations with positron emission tomography , 1994, Nature.

[3]  Cindy M. Bukach,et al.  Gesturing and Naming , 2003, Psychological science.

[4]  R. Klatzky The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgments , 1989 .

[5]  T. Shallice,et al.  Category specific semantic impairments , 1984 .

[6]  Dennis R. Proffitt,et al.  Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. , 2001 .

[7]  Olaf B. Paulson,et al.  When Action Turns into Words. Activation of Motor-Based Knowledge during Categorization of Manipulable Objects , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[8]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Computation and Cognition: Towards A Foundation for Cognitive Science, by Zenon W. Pylyshyn, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., xxiii + 292 pp., £26.15 , 1985, Robotica.

[9]  Sarah H. Creem,et al.  Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Modeling parietal-premotor interactions in primate control of grasping , 1998, Neural Networks.

[11]  Z. Pylyshyn Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. , 1999, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[12]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[13]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[14]  S. Small The neuroscience of language , 2008, Brain and Language.

[15]  L. Lotto,et al.  Le figure PD/DPSS. Misure di accordo sul nome, tipicità, familiarità, età di acquisizione e tempi di denominazione per 266 figure , 2001 .

[16]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[17]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Measuring time to awareness , 1991, Neuroreport.

[18]  M Gentilucci,et al.  Influence of automatic word reading on motor control , 1998, The European journal of neuroscience.

[19]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Localization of grasp representations in humans by positron emission tomography , 1996, Experimental Brain Research.

[20]  Alex Martin,et al.  Representation of Manipulable Man-Made Objects in the Dorsal Stream , 2000, NeuroImage.

[21]  R. Campbell,et al.  Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging of crossmodal binding in the human heteromodal cortex , 2000, Current Biology.

[22]  Christine D. Wilson,et al.  Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  M Poncet,et al.  The role of sensorimotor experience in object recognition. A case of multimodal agnosia. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[24]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science , 1984 .

[25]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Cognitive representations of hand posture in ideomotor apraxia , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  M. Brett,et al.  Actions Speak Louder Than Functions: The Importance of Manipulability and Action in Tool Representation , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  H. Bekkering,et al.  The role of objects in imitation. , 2002 .

[28]  Maurizio Gentilucci,et al.  Object motor representation and language , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[29]  G. Lakoff,et al.  The Brain's concepts: the role of the Sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge , 2005, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[30]  R. Ellis,et al.  On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge , 1996, Nature.

[32]  Matthew T. Keener,et al.  Differences in word associations to pictures and words , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  A. Borghi Grounding Cognition: Object Concepts and Action , 2005 .

[34]  Saul Sternberg,et al.  The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method , 1969 .

[35]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Functional Features in Language and Space. , 2004 .

[36]  R. Ellis,et al.  Action priming by briefly presented objects. , 2004, Acta psychologica.

[37]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Grounding language in action , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Putting words in perspective , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[39]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  The Neuroscience of Language: On Brain Circuits of Words and Serial Order , 2003 .

[40]  R. Ellis,et al.  The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization , 2001 .

[41]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Recognition by action: dissociating visual and semantic routes to action in normal observers. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[43]  R. Ellis,et al.  Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects. , 2000, British journal of psychology.

[44]  M. Gentilucci,et al.  Language and motor control , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[45]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Seeing, saying and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions , 2004 .

[46]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Premotor Cortex Activation during Observation and Naming of Familiar Tools , 1997, NeuroImage.

[47]  P. Dixon,et al.  Semantics affect the planning but not control of grasping , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[48]  Myrna F. Schwartz,et al.  Function and manipulation tool knowledge in apraxia: Knowing ‘what for’ but not ‘how’ , 2000 .

[49]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  The neural substrates of action retrieval: An examination of semantic and visual routes to action , 2002 .