Handles of manipulable objects attract covert visual attention: ERP evidence

Previous research has demonstrated that people are faster at making a manual response with the hand that is aligned with the handle of a manipulable object compared to its functional end. According to theories of embodied cognition (ETC), the presentation of a manipulable object automatically elicits sensorimotor simulations of the respective hand and these simulations facilitate the response. However, an alternative interpretation of these data is that handles preferentially attract visual attention, since attended stimuli and locations typically elicit faster responses. We investigated attentional biases elicited by manipulable and non-manipulable objects using event-related-potentials (ERPs). On each trial, a picture of a manipulable object was followed by a target dot that participants had to make a button-press to. The dot was located at either the handle or functional end of the object. Consistent with previous attentional cuing paradigms, we showed that the P1 ERP component was greater in response to targets cued by handles than by functional ends. These results suggest that object handles automatically bias covert attentional processes. These attentional biases may account for earlier behavioural findings, without any recourse to ETC.

[1]  E. Vogel,et al.  Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[2]  S. Anderson,et al.  Attentional processes link perception and action , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  S. Yantis,et al.  Cortical mechanisms of space-based and object-based attentional control , 2003, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[4]  M. Eimer “Sensory gating” as a mechanism for visuospatial orienting: Electrophysiological evidence from trial-by-trial cuing experiments , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  Michael E J Masson,et al.  A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[6]  R. Nicoletti,et al.  Simon-Like and Functional Affordance Effects with Tools: The Effects of Object Perceptual Discrimination and Object Action State , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  Gert Westermann,et al.  An eye-tracking study of animate objects , 2009 .

[8]  Gert Westermann,et al.  Eye-tracking study of inanimate objects , 2009 .

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

[10]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Visuomotor neurons: ambiguity of the discharge or 'motor' perception? , 2000, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[11]  L. Barsalou Grounded cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

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

[13]  S. Luck,et al.  Electrocortical substrates of visual selective attention , 1993 .

[14]  Marina Schmid,et al.  An Introduction To The Event Related Potential Technique , 2016 .

[15]  L. Fadiga,et al.  Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[16]  R. Proctor,et al.  The object-based Simon effect: grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  E. Wagenmakers A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  C A Grimbergen,et al.  High-quality recording of bioelectric events , 1991, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[21]  Rob Ellis,et al.  The role of visual attention in action priming , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  N. White,et al.  A test of the embodied simulation theory of object perception: potentiation of responses to artifacts and animals , 2014, Psychological research.

[23]  George S. Cree,et al.  Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words , 2008, Cognition.

[24]  A. Raftery Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

[25]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[26]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  D. Bub,et al.  Priming of reach and grasp actions by handled objects. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  G. Woodman,et al.  Event-related potential studies of attention , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[30]  C A Grimbergen,et al.  High-quality recording of bioelectric events , 1990, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[31]  J. Algina,et al.  Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. , 2003, Psychological methods.