Objects, spatial compatibility, and affordances: A connectionist study

In two Artificial Life simulations we evolved artificial organisms possessing a visual and a motor system, and whose nervous system was simulated with a neural network. Each organism could see four objects, either upright or reversed, with a left or a right handle. In Task 1 they learned to reach the object handle independently of the handle's position. In Task 2 they learned to reach one of two buttons located below the handle either to decide where the handle was (Simulation 1) or whether the object was upright or reversed (Simulation 2). Task 1 simulated real life experience, Task 2 replicated either a classic spatial compatibility task (Simulation 1) or an experiment by Tucker and Ellis (1998) (Simulation 2). In both simulations learning occurred earlier in the Compatible condition, when the button to reach and the handle were on the same side, than in the Incompatible condition.

[1]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[2]  J. Hietanen,et al.  Facilitation and interfence occur at different stages of processing in the simon paradigm , 1995 .

[3]  G. Kanizsa.  Seeing and thinking. , 1985, Acta psychologica.

[4]  R. Wallace,et al.  S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  Marco Zorzi,et al.  Response strategies and the Simon effect , 2000, Psychological research.

[6]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention , 1987, Neuropsychologia.

[7]  Dennis R. Proffitt,et al.  Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. , 2001 .

[8]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  M. Zorzi,et al.  The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  R. Proctor,et al.  The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  R. Ward.  Independence and integration of perception and action: An introduction , 2002 .

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

[13]  B. Hommel.  Inverting the Simon effect intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. , 1993 .

[14]  Domenico Parisi,et al.  Meaning and motor actions: Artificial life and behavioral evidence , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[15]  C. Umilta,et al.  Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  R. Nicoletti,et al.  On the relationship between affordance and Simon effects: Are the effects really independent? , 2011 .

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

[18]  de Ritske Jong,et al.  Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility , 1997 .

[19]  Jason B. Mattingley,et al.  Hand-hemispace spatial compatibility, precueing, and stimulus-onset asynchrony , 1994, Psychological research.

[20]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  Steven P. Tipper,et al.  Implicitly Evoked Actions Modulate Visual Selection: Evidence from Parietal Extinction , 2005, Current Biology.

[22]  D. Parisi,et al.  TRoPICALS: a computational embodied neuroscience model of compatibility effects. , 2010, Psychological review.

[23]  D. Parisi,et al.  TRoPICALS : A Computational Embodied Neuroscience Model of Experiments on Compatibility Effects , 2010 .

[24]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[25]  C. Umilta,et al.  Compatibility due to the coding of the relative position of the effectors. , 1984, Acta psychologica.

[26]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[27]  Domenico Parisi,et al.  Action and hierarchical levels of categories: A connectionist perspective , 2005, Cognitive Systems Research.

[28]  L. G. Gawryszewski,et al.  What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? , 1986 .

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

[30]  Garry Young,et al.  Are different affordances subserved by different neural pathways? , 2006, Brain and Cognition.

[31]  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.

[32]  M. Zorzi,et al.  A computational model of the Simon effect , 1995, Psychological research.

[33]  Sarah H. Creem,et al.  Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[35]  Ed Symes,et al.  Visual object affordances: object orientation. , 2007, Acta psychologica.

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

[37]  Anna M. Borghi,et al.  Objects and Affordances: An Artificial Life Simulation , 2005 .

[38]  Andrea Di Ferdinando,et al.  INTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SENSORY INPUT REFLECT THE MOTOR OUTPUT WITH WHICH ORGANISMS RESPOND TO THE INPUT , 2004 .

[39]  G. Kane.  Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol 1: Foundations, vol 2: Psychological and Biological Models , 1994 .

[40]  Daniele Caligiore,et al.  AFFORDANCES AND COMPATIBILITY EFFECTS: A NEURAL-NETWORK COMPUTATIONAL MODEL , 2009 .

[41]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective , 1990 .

[42]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. , 1967, The Journal of applied psychology.

[43]  B. Hommel.  The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[44]  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.

[45]  Roberto Nicoletti,et al.  Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. , 1990 .

[46]  Lucia Riggio,et al.  Sentence comprehension and simulation of object temporary, canonical and stable affordances , 2009, Brain Research.

[47]  M. Arbib.  From monkey-like action recognition to human language: An evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[48]  J. Requin,et al.  The Effects of Irrelevant Stimuli: 1. The Time Course of Stimulus-Stimulus and Stimulus-Response Consistency Effects With Stroop-Like Stimuli, Simon-Like Tasks, and Their Factorial Combinations , 1999 .

[49]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .