Visual context modulates potentiation of grasp types during semantic object categorization

Substantial evidence suggests that conceptual processing of manipulable objects is associated with potentiation of action. Such data have been viewed as evidence that objects are recognized via access to action features. Many objects, however, are associated with multiple actions. For example, a kitchen timer may be clenched with a power grip to move it but pinched with a precision grip to use it. The present study tested the hypothesis that action evocation during conceptual object processing is responsive to the visual scene in which objects are presented. Twenty-five healthy adults were asked to categorize object pictures presented in different naturalistic visual contexts that evoke either move- or use-related actions. Categorization judgments (natural vs. artifact) were performed by executing a move- or use-related action (clench vs. pinch) on a response device, and response times were assessed as a function of contextual congruence. Although the actions performed were irrelevant to the categorization judgment, responses were significantly faster when actions were compatible with the visual context. This compatibility effect was largely driven by faster pinch responses when objects were presented in use-compatible, as compared with move-compatible, contexts. The present study is the first to highlight the influence of visual scene on stimulus–response compatibility effects during semantic object processing. These data support the hypothesis that action evocation during conceptual object processing is biased toward context-relevant actions.

[1]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

[2]  A. Allport,et al.  Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action , 1987 .

[3]  H. Heuer,et al.  Perspectives on Perception and Action , 1989 .

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

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

[6]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. , 1999 .

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

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

[10]  H. Forssberg,et al.  Differential fronto-parietal activation depending on force used in a precision grip task: an fMRI study. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action , 2002 .

[12]  Luciano Fadiga,et al.  Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

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

[14]  John Whyte,et al.  A patient registry for cognitive rehabilitation research: a strategy for balancing patients' privacy rights with researchers' need for access. , 2005, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[15]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Selection-for-action in visual search. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[16]  S. Tipper,et al.  Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  Rob Ellis,et al.  Manual asymmetries in visually primed grasping , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  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.

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

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

[21]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Integrated Contextual Representation for Objects' Identities and Their Locations , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[22]  Lauren M. Bylsma,et al.  Toward an integrated account of object and action selection: A computational analysis and empirical findings from reaching-to-grasp and tool-use , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Context effects on the processing of action-relevant object features. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  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.

[25]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems , 2010, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

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

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

[28]  L. Deouell,et al.  ERP evidence for context congruity effects during simultaneous object–scene processing , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Impaired access to manipulation features in Apraxia: Evidence from eyetracking and semantic judgment tasks , 2010, Brain and Language.

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

[31]  E. Koechlin,et al.  What Are They Up To? The Role of Sensory Evidence and Prior Knowledge in Action Understanding , 2011, PloS one.

[32]  Angelo Cangelosi,et al.  Object affordance influences instruction span , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[33]  L. Wheaton,et al.  One hand, two objects: Emergence of affordance in contexts , 2012, Brain and Cognition.

[34]  D. Mirman,et al.  Temporal dynamics of activation of thematic and functional knowledge during conceptual processing of manipulable artifacts. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  Kelly Shen,et al.  Neural basis of feature-based contextual effects on visual search behavior , 2012, Front. Behav. Neurosci..

[36]  A. Cangelosi,et al.  Electrophysiological Examination of Embodiment in Vision and Action , 2012, Psychological science.

[37]  D. Yves von Cramon,et al.  The Context–Object–Manipulation Triad: Cross Talk during Action Perception Revealed by fMRI , 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[38]  John Bridgeman,et al.  Bodies and other visual objects: the dialectics of reaching toward objects , 2013, Psychological research.

[39]  Steven A. Jax,et al.  Response interference between functional and structural object-related actions is increased in patients with ideomotor apraxia. , 2013, Journal of neuropsychology.

[40]  D. Mirman,et al.  Incidental and context-responsive activation of structure- and function-based action features during object identification. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  A. Cangelosi,et al.  How affordances associated with a distractor object affect compatibility effects: A study with the computational model TRoPICALS , 2013, Psychological research.