The bottle and the glass say to me: “Pour!”

The present study aimed at determining whether the observation of two functionally compatible artefacts, that is which potentially concur in achieving a specific function, automatically activates a motor programme of interaction between the two objects. To this purpose, an interference paradigm was used during which an artefact (a bottle filled with orange juice), target of a reaching-grasping and lifting sequence, was presented alone or with a non-target object (distractor) of the same or different semantic category and functionally compatible or not. In experiment 1, the bottle was presented alone or with an artefact (a sphere), or a natural (an apple) distractor. In experiment 2, the bottle was presented with either the apple or a glass (an artefact) filled with orange juice, whereas in experiment 3, either an empty or a filled glass was presented. In the control experiment 4, we compared the kinematics of reaching-grasping and pouring with those of reaching-grasping and lifting. The kinematics of reach, grasp and lift was affected by distractor presentation. However, no difference was observed between two distractors that belonged to different semantic categories. In contrast, the presence of the empty rather filled glass affected the kinematics of the actual grasp. This suggests that an actually functional compatibility between target (the bottle) and distractor (the empty glass) was necessary to activate automatically a programme of interaction (i.e. pouring) between the two artefacts. This programme affected the programme actually executed (i.e. lifting). The results of the present study indicate that, in addition to affordances related to intrinsic object properties, “working affordances” related to a specific use of an artefact with another object can be activated on the basis of functional compatibility.

[1]  J. Haxby,et al.  fMRI Responses to Video and Point-Light Displays of Moving Humans and Manipulable Objects , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  James N. Lee,et al.  The influence of complex action knowledge on representations of novel graspable objects: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2007, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[3]  Maurizio Gentilucci.  Object familiarity affects finger shaping during grasping of fruit stalks , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  Scott H. Johnson-Frey.  The neural bases of complex tool use in humans , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  U. Castiello,et al.  Modulation of reach-to-grasp parameters: semantic category, volumetric properties and distractor interference? , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[8]  Kenneth F. Valyear,et al.  Human parietal cortex in action , 2006, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[9]  Luca Turella,et al.  An object for an action, the same object for other actions: effects on hand shaping , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  M. Jeannerod.  The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements , 1990, Psychological Medicine.

[11]  P. Matthews,et al.  Category-related activation for written words in the posterior fusiform is task specific , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

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

[13]  H Chertkow,et al.  Dissociable brain regions process object meaning and object structure during picture naming , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[14]  Martha J Farah,et al.  The Living/Nonliving Dissociation is Not an Artifact: Giving an A Priori Implausible Hypothesis a Strong Test. , 1996, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[15]  Steven A. Jax,et al.  Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object , 2010, Cognition.

[16]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Orienting of attention and eye movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  Z. Estes,et al.  Thematic thinking : the apprehension and consequences of thematic relations , 2011 .

[18]  J. Haxby,et al.  Parallel Visual Motion Processing Streams for Manipulable Objects and Human Movements , 2002, Neuron.

[19]  J. Tresilian.  Attention in action or obstruction of movement? A kinematic analysis of avoidance behavior in prehension , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[20]  G. Murphy,et al.  Thematic relations in adults' concepts. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  Gregory L. Murphy,et al.  Thematic relations in adults' concepts. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Spatial attention and eye movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A computational model of semantic memory impairment: modality specificity and emergent category specificity. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  W. Davis.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 2012 .

[25]  M Jeannerod,et al.  The hand and the object: the role of posterior parietal cortex in forming motor representations. , 1994, Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology.

[26]  Zachary Estes,et al.  Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  Lewis A. Wheaton,et al.  Human Neuroscience , 2022 .

[28]  Umberto Castiello,et al.  How perceived object dimension influences prehension , 1996, Neuroreport.

[29]  Jody C. Culham,et al.  Does tool-related fMRI activity within the intraparietal sulcus reflect the plan to grasp? , 2007, NeuroImage.

[30]  M. Gentilucci,et al.  Planning for action , 2020, Coaching with Research in Mind.

[31]  E. Warrington,et al.  Categories of knowledge. Further fractionations and an attempted integration. , 1987, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[32]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. , 1987, Canadian journal of psychology.

[33]  Thematic relations in adults' concepts and categorization , 1996 .

[34]  M. Gentilucci,et al.  Visual distractors differentially interfere with the reaching and grasping components of prehension movements , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  M. Costantini,et al.  When objects are close to me: Affordances in the peripersonal space , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[36]  Scott Atran,et al.  1. Basic Conceptual Domains , 1989 .

[37]  Sandro Rubichi,et al.  Are visual stimuli sufficient to evoke motor information? Studies with hand primes , 2007, Neuroscience Letters.

[38]  Maurizio Gentilucci,et al.  On the relations between affordance and representation of the agent’s effector , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[39]  T. Shallice,et al.  The origins of utilization behaviour. , 1989, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[40]  R. J. Seitz,et al.  A fronto‐parietal circuit for object manipulation in man: evidence from an fMRI‐study , 1999, The European journal of neuroscience.

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

[42]  S. Chieffi,et al.  Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[43]  Rob Ellis,et al.  Does selecting one visual object from several require inhibition of the actions associated with nonselected objects? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  Laurel J. Buxbaum,et al.  Deficient internal models for planning hand–object interactions in apraxia , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[45]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  A test between two hypotheses and a possible third way for the control of prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[46]  S. Tipper,et al.  Hand deviations away from visual cues: Indirect evidence for inhibition , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[47]  Hanna Damasio,et al.  Premotor and Prefrontal Correlates of Category-Related Lexical Retrieval , 1998, NeuroImage.

[48]  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.

[49]  E. Reed.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[50]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Influence of different types of grasping on the transport component of prehension movements , 1991, Neuropsychologia.

[51]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The paired-object affordance effect. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[53]  S. Chieffi,et al.  The role of proprioception in the control of prehension movements: a kinematic study in a peripherally deafferented patient and in normal subjects , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[54]  James R. Tresilian,et al.  The effect of obstacle position on reach-to-grasp movements , 2001, Experimental Brain Research.

[55]  M. Gentilucci.  Object motor representation and reaching–grasping control , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[56]  R T Knight,et al.  Neural representations of skilled movement. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[57]  S. Tipper,et al.  Inhibitory mechanisms of attention: locus, stability, and relationship with distractor interference effects. , 1991, British Journal of Psychology.

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

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

[60]  M. Farah,et al.  Can recognition of living things be selectively impaired , 1998 .

[61]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Seeing the action: neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[62]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[63]  S. Tipper,et al.  Selective Reaching to Grasp: Evidence for Distractor Interference Effects , 1997 .

[64]  Alex Martin,et al.  Experience-dependent modulation of category-related cortical activity. , 2002, Cerebral cortex.

[65]  F. Lhermitte.  'Utilization behaviour' and its relation to lesions of the frontal lobes. , 1983, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[67]  A. Caramazza,et al.  WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF SEMANTIC CATEGORY-SPECIFIC DEFICITS? A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE CLINICAL EVIDENCE , 2003, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[68]  G. Pezzulo,et al.  When affordances climb into your mind: Advantages of motor simulation in a memory task performed by novice and expert rock climbers , 2010, Brain and Cognition.