Repetition blindness reveals differences between the representations of manipulable and nonmanipulable objects.

We used repetition blindness to investigate the nature of the representations underlying identification of manipulable objects. Observers named objects presented in rapid serial visual presentation streams containing either manipulable or nonmanipulable objects. In half the streams, 1 object was repeated. Overall accuracy was lower when streams contained 2 different manipulable objects than when they contained only nonmanipulable objects or a single manipulable object. In addition, nonmanipulable objects induced repetition blindness, whereas manipulable objects were associated with a repetition advantage. These findings suggest that motor information plays a direct role in object identification. Manipulable objects are vulnerable to interference from other objects associated with conflicting motor programs, but they show better individuation of repeated objects associated with the same action.

[1]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  Repetition blindness for pseudoobject pictures. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects , 2002, Brain and Language.

[3]  D. Bartram Levels of coding in picture-picture comparison tasks , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[4]  V. Coltheart Fleeting memories : cognition of brief visual stimuli , 1999 .

[5]  Irina M Harris,et al.  Repetition blindness for rotated objects. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  I. M. Harris,et al.  Automatic motor cortex activation for natural as compared to awkward grips of a manipulable object , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[7]  Christopher Barry,et al.  Age of Acquisition, Word Frequency, and the Locus of Repetition Priming of Picture Naming , 2001 .

[8]  T. R. Jordan,et al.  Perception and action in 'visual form agnosia'. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[9]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  What is the role of motor simulation in action and object recognition? Evidence from apraxia , 2007, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[10]  J. Segui,et al.  Repetition blindness between words : Nature of the orthographic and phonological representations involved BAVELIER , 2022 .

[11]  Sally A. Linkenauger,et al.  A Functional Role for Motor Simulation in Identifying Tools , 2010, Psychological science.

[12]  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.

[13]  G. Gigli,et al.  Degraded Semantic Knowledge And Accurate Object Use , 2007, Cortex.

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

[15]  Knowledge as an Object , 2000, Ritual and Mythology of the Chinese Triads.

[16]  M. Potter,et al.  Time to understand pictures and words , 1975, Nature.

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

[18]  C. Harris,et al.  Repetition blindness occurs in nonwords. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  M. Masson,et al.  Repetition blindness in rapid lists: activation and inhibition versus construction and attribution. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visual object processing in optic aphasia: a case of semantic access agnosia , 1987 .

[21]  Christopher Barry,et al.  Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart Pictures: Effects of Age of Acquisition, Frequency, and Name Agreement , 1997 .

[22]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  Concepts and categories: a cognitive neuropsychological perspective. , 2009, Annual review of psychology.

[23]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[24]  K. Heilman,et al.  Ideational apraxia: A deficit in tool selection and use , 1989, Annals of neurology.

[25]  N. Kanwisher Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation , 1987, Cognition.

[26]  F. Fang,et al.  Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[29]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  Action-Related Properties Shape Object Representations in the Ventral Stream , 2007, Neuron.

[30]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: a neuropsychological and computational investigation. , 2004, Psychological review.

[31]  M. Bar,et al.  Cortical Mechanisms Specific to Explicit Visual Object Recognition , 2001, Neuron.

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

[33]  Roel M. Willems,et al.  The Function of Words: Distinct Neural Correlates for Words Denoting Differently Manipulable Objects , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[34]  D J Mewhort,et al.  Repetition deficit in rapid-serial-visual-presentation displays: encoding failure or retrieval failure? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Mary L Still,et al.  Now you see it, now you don't: repetition blindness for nonwords. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  M. Aravindh Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways , 2010 .

[37]  P. Jolicoeur The time to name disoriented natural objects , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[38]  M. Corballis,et al.  Repetition blindness is orientation blind , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[39]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[40]  R. Malach,et al.  Object-related activity revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging in human occipital cortex. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  Nicolas A. McNair,et al.  Disentangling the contributions of grasp and action representations in the recognition of manipulable objects , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[42]  Veronika Coltheart,et al.  Repetition blindness for novel objects , 2005 .

[43]  Paul E. Dux,et al.  Orientation-invariant object recognition: evidence from repetition blindness , 2005, Cognition.

[44]  A. Caramazza,et al.  The locus of the frequency effect in picture naming: When recognizing is not enough , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[45]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  The Role of the Dorsal Visual Processing Stream in Tool Identification , 2010, Psychological science.

[46]  M. L. Lambon Ralph,et al.  The role of conceptual knowledge in object use evidence from semantic dementia. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[47]  柳 悦州,et al.  Structure and deterioration of silk fabrics of the edo period. , 2000 .

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

[49]  Irina M Harris,et al.  Turning objects on their heads: The influence of the stored axis on object individuation , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[50]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  The human visual cortex. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[51]  S. Andrews,et al.  Repetition blindness in sentence contexts: Not just an attribution? , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[52]  Glyn W Humphreys,et al.  Privileged access to action for objects relative to words , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[53]  A Caramazza,et al.  Repetition blindness under minimum memory load: Effects of spatial and temporal proximity and the encoding effectiveness of the first item , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[54]  A. Morris,et al.  Repetition blindness: An emergent property of inter-item competition , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[55]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[56]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Category-specific neural processing for naming pictures of animals and naming pictures of tools: An ALE meta-analysis , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[57]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Brain Signatures of Meaning Access in Action Word Recognition , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[58]  J. Haxby,et al.  Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[59]  Markus Graf,et al.  The role of action representations in visual object recognition , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[60]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  Neural events and perceptual awareness , 2001, Cognition.

[61]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Modelling direct perceptual constraints on action selection: The Naming and Action Model (NAM) , 2002 .

[62]  M. Potter,et al.  Repetition blindness: levels of processing. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[63]  F. Fang,et al.  Cortical responses to invisible objects in human dorsal and ventral pathways , 2010 .

[64]  W. Glaser Picture naming , 1992, Cognition.

[65]  M. Gardner,et al.  USING CONFIDENCE INTERVALS , 1987, The Lancet.

[66]  Alice Mado Proverbio,et al.  250ms to code for action affordance during observation of manipulable objects , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[67]  O. Hauk,et al.  Neurophysiological distinction of action words in the fronto‐central cortex , 2004, Human brain mapping.