Action Properties of Object Images Facilitate Visual Search

There is mounting evidence that constraints from action can influence the early stages of object selection, even in the absence of any explicit preparation for action. Here, we examined whether action properties of images can influence visual search, and whether such effects were modulated by hand preference. Observers searched for an oddball target among 3 distractors. The search arrays consisted either of images of graspable “handles” (“action-related” stimuli), or images that were otherwise identical to the handles but in which the semicircular fulcrum element was reoriented so that the stimuli no longer looked like graspable objects (“non-action-related” stimuli). In Experiment 1, right-handed observers, who have been shown previously to prefer to use the right hand over the left for manual tasks, were faster to detect targets in action-related versus non-action-related arrays, and showed a response time (reaction time [RT]) advantage for rightward- versus leftward-oriented action-related handles. In Experiment 2, left-handed observers, who have been shown to use the left and right hands relatively equally in manual tasks, were also faster to detect targets in the action-related versus non-action-related arrays, but RTs were equally fast for rightward- and leftward-oriented handle targets. Together, or results suggest that action properties in images, and constraints for action imposed by preferences for manual interaction with objects, can influence attentional selection in the context of visual search.

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

[2]  Michael S. Gazzaniga,et al.  A Dissociation between the Representation of Tool-use Skills and Hand Dominance: Insights from Left- and Right-handed Callosotomy Patients , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  M. Goodale Hemispheric differences in motor control , 1988, Behavioural Brain Research.

[4]  Jeanine K. Stefanucci,et al.  Asymmetrical Body Perception , 2009, Psychological science.

[5]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Correspondence Effects with Torches: Grasping Affordance or Visual Feature Asymmetry? , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[7]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Neural representations of graspable objects: are tools special? , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[8]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The case of the unfamiliar implement: Schema-based over-riding of semantic knowledge from objects in everyday action , 2007, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[9]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Grouping processes in visual search: Effects with single- and combined-feature targets , 1989 .

[10]  Paul Cisek,et al.  Cortical mechanisms of action selection: the affordance competition hypothesis , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  G. Humphreys Beyond Serial Stages for Attentional Selection: The Critical Role of Action , 2013 .

[12]  R. Passingham,et al.  Objects automatically potentiate action: an fMRI study of implicit processing , 2003, The European journal of neuroscience.

[13]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Knowing What You Need But Not What You Want: Affordances and Action-Defined Templates in Neglect , 2002, Behavioural Neurology.

[14]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Shape beyond recognition: form-derived directionality and its effects on visual attention and motion perception. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  Katherine L. Roberts,et al.  Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly-presented objects , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[16]  Harry Heft An examination of constructivist and gibsonian approaches to environmental psychology , 1981 .

[17]  A. Mack,et al.  Potentiation of action by undetected affordant objects , 2008 .

[18]  Anna Schubö,et al.  Modulation of visual attention by object affordance , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[19]  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.

[20]  U. Neisser VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.

[21]  Jody C Culham,et al.  Is That within Reach? fMRI Reveals That the Human Superior Parieto-Occipital Cortex Encodes Objects Reachable by the Hand , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[22]  Robert L. Whitwell,et al.  Left handedness does not extend to visually guided precision grasping , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  Jody C. Culham,et al.  Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: Repetition effects for pictures versus real objects , 2011, Scientific reports.

[24]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Action relationships concatenate representations of separate objects in the ventral visual system , 2010, NeuroImage.

[25]  Claudia L. R. Gonzalez,et al.  Hand use for grasping in a bimanual task: evidence for different roles? , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[27]  Jeanine K. Stefanucci,et al.  The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  M. Goodale,et al.  Hand preference for precision grasping predicts language lateralization , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  Agnieszka Wykowska,et al.  How you move is what you see: action planning biases selection in visual search. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  The role of perceptual load in action affordance by ignored objects , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[32]  Jody C. Culham,et al.  Neuroimaging reveals enhanced activation in a reach-selective brain area for objects located within participants’ typical hand workspaces , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  Kevin J. Hawley,et al.  Novel popout: Empirical boundaries and tentative theory. , 1993 .

[34]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.

[35]  J. Norman Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[36]  P. Bryden,et al.  Under what conditions will right-handers use their left hand? The effects of object orientation, object location, arm position, and task complexity in preferential reaching , 2011, Laterality.

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

[38]  L. E. Rohr,et al.  The effects of skill demands and object position on the distribution of preferred hand reaches , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

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

[40]  W. Johnston,et al.  Attention capture by novel stimuli. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[41]  L. E. Rohr,et al.  Reaching patterns across working space: The effects of handedness, task demands, and comfort levels , 2006, Laterality.

[42]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Action relations, semantic relations, and familiarity of spatial position in Balint’s syndrome: Crossover effects on perceptual report and on localization , 2006, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

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

[44]  J. Kalaska,et al.  Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. , 2010, Annual review of neuroscience.

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

[46]  R. Proctor,et al.  An electrophysiological study of the object-based correspondence effect: Is the effect triggered by an intended grasping action? , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[47]  A. Schubö,et al.  Action Intentions Modulate Allocation of Visual Attention: Electrophysiological Evidence , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[48]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Effects of action relations on the configural coding between objects. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Grouping processes in visual search: effects with single- and combined-feature targets. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[50]  J. H. Flowers,et al.  How does familiarity affect visual search for letter strings? , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[51]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Does the Concept of Affordance Add Anything to Explanations of Stimulus–Response Compatibility Effects? , 2014 .

[52]  Harry Heft An Ecological Approach to Psychology , 2013 .

[53]  Katherine L. Roberts,et al.  The interaction of attention and action: from seeing action to acting on perception. , 2010, British journal of psychology.

[54]  D. Carey,et al.  One hand or the other? Effector selection biases in right and left handers , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[55]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[56]  Daniel N Bub,et al.  Features of Planned Hand Actions Influence Identification of Graspable Objects , 2013, Psychological science.

[57]  P. Bryden,et al.  Preferential reaching across regions of hemispace in adults and children. , 2006, Developmental psychobiology.

[58]  J. Pratt,et al.  Left hand, but not right hand, reaching is sensitive to visual context , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[59]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Visual Search Is Modulated by Action Intentions , 2002, Psychological science.

[60]  Tzvi Ganel,et al.  Hemispheric specialization for the visual control of action is independent of handedness. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[61]  C. Gonzalez,et al.  The contributions of vision and haptics to reaching and grasping , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[62]  R. Ward,et al.  S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation , 2002 .

[63]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[65]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  A distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[66]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[67]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Perception and action. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[68]  C. Gonzalez,et al.  Is that graspable? Let your right hand be the judge , 2015, Brain and Cognition.

[69]  M. Wertheimer Laws of organization in perceptual forms. , 1938 .

[70]  H. Deubel,et al.  Attentional landscapes in reaching and grasping , 2010, Vision Research.