Motor Inhibition to Dangerous Objects: Electrophysiological Evidence for Task-dependent Aversive Affordances

Abstract Previous work suggests that perception of an object automatically facilitates actions related to object grasping and manipulation. Recently, the notion of automaticity has been challenged by behavioral studies suggesting that dangerous objects elicit aversive affordances that interfere with encoding of an object's motor properties; however, related EEG studies have provided little support for these claims. We sought EEG evidence that would support the operation of an inhibitory mechanism that interferes with the motor encoding of dangerous objects, and we investigated whether such mechanism would be modulated by the perceived distance of an object and the goal of a given task. EEGs were recorded by 24 participants who passively perceived dangerous and neutral objects in their peripersonal, boundary, or extrapersonal space and performed either a reachability judgment task or a categorization task. Our results showed that greater attention, reflected in the visual P1 potential, was drawn by dangerous and reachable objects. Crucially, a frontal N2 potential, associated with motor inhibition, was larger for dangerous objects only when participants performed a reachability judgment task. Furthermore, a larger parietal P3b potential for dangerous objects indicated the greater difficulty in linking a dangerous object to the appropriate response, especially when it was located in the participants' extrapersonal space. Taken together, our results show that perception of dangerous objects elicits aversive affordances in a task-dependent way and provides evidence for the operation of a neural mechanism that does not code affordances of dangerous objects automatically, but rather on the basis of contextual information.

[1]  Peng Liu,et al.  Increasing Perceptual Salience Diminishes the Motor Interference Effect From Dangerous Objects , 2020, Frontiers in Psychology.

[2]  Christina F. Lavallee,et al.  Electroencephalography of response inhibition tasks: functional networks and cognitive contributions. , 2013, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[3]  J. Polich Updating P 300 : An Integrative Theory of P 3 a and P 3 b , 2009 .

[4]  Liang Zhao The Automaticity of Affordance of Dangerous Object , 2016, The Spanish Journal of Psychology.

[5]  Peng Liu,et al.  Time-frequency analysis of event-related potentials associated with the origin of the motor interference effect from dangerous objects , 2018, Brain Research.

[6]  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.

[7]  Ehud Zohary,et al.  Is That Near My Hand? Multisensory Representation of Peripersonal Space in Human Intraparietal Sulcus , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  D. Brouillet,et al.  Is there any Influence of Variations in Context on Object-Affordance Effects in Schizophrenia? Perception of Property and Goals of Action , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[9]  Swann Pichon,et al.  Threat prompts defensive brain responses independently of attentional control. , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  G. F. Tremblay,et al.  The Prefrontal Cortex , 1989, Neurology.

[11]  Jody C. Culham,et al.  Orientation sensitivity to graspable objects: An fMRI adaptation study , 2007, NeuroImage.

[12]  Jerram L. Brown,et al.  Defence, attack, and flight elicited by electrical stimulation of the hypothalamus of the cat , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[14]  Mario Liotti,et al.  Inhibitory control in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: event-related potentials identify the processing component and timing of an impaired right-frontal response-inhibition mechanism , 2000, Biological Psychiatry.

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

[16]  John Duncan,et al.  A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex , 1993, Nature.

[17]  A. Chemero An Outline of a Theory of Affordances , 2003, How Shall Affordances be Refined? Four Perspectives.

[18]  T. Ziemke,et al.  Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review , 2013, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[19]  Yann Coello,et al.  Motor representations and the perception of space: perceptual judgments of the boundary of action space , 2010 .

[20]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Nicholas P. Holmes,et al.  The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space , 2004, Cognitive Processing.

[22]  Jeff T. Larsen,et al.  May I have your attention, please: Electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  R. Nicoletti,et al.  Perceiving object dangerousness: an escape from pain? , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  Laura Busse,et al.  Electrophysiological activity underlying inhibitory control processes in normal adults , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[25]  R. Knight,et al.  Mechanisms of human attention: event-related potentials and oscillations , 2001, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[26]  Y. Coello,et al.  EEG μ rhythm in virtual reality reveals that motor coding of visual objects in peripersonal space is task dependent , 2016, Cortex.

[27]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  Late ERP components in visual and auditory Go/Nogo tasks. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[28]  Dietmar Heinke,et al.  Implied actions between paired objects lead to affordance selection by inhibition. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  R. Nicoletti,et al.  Keep Away from Danger: Dangerous Objects in Dynamic and Static Situations , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[30]  F. Manes,et al.  N400 ERPs for actions: building meaning in context , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[31]  Blake W. Johnson,et al.  Comparison of the N300 and N400 ERPs to picture stimuli in congruent and incongruent contexts , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[32]  Satoshi Endo,et al.  Contribution of the motor system to the perception of reachable space: an fMRI study , 2014, The European journal of neuroscience.

[33]  Valeria I. Petkova,et al.  Integration of visual and tactile signals from the hand in the human brain: an FMRI study. , 2011, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  R. Andersen,et al.  Intentional maps in posterior parietal cortex. , 2002, Annual review of neuroscience.

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

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

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

[38]  K Richard Ridderinkhof,et al.  ERP components associated with successful and unsuccessful stopping in a stop-signal task. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[39]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Perspective in the conceptualization of categories , 2019, Psychological research.

[40]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  E. Donchin,et al.  P300 and tracking difficulty: evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. , 1980, Psychophysiology.

[42]  Jun'ichi Katayama,et al.  Difficulty of Discrimination Modulates Attentional Capture by Regulating Attentional Focus , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[44]  W. Epstein,et al.  Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  Emily Balcetis,et al.  Affective Signals of Threat Increase Perceived Proximity , 2013, Psychological science.

[46]  H. Bokura,et al.  Frontal lobe contribution to response inhibition process—an ERP study and aging effect , 2002 .

[47]  Andrea Flumini,et al.  Context and hand posture modulate the neural dynamics of tool–object perception , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[48]  G Rizzolatti,et al.  The Space Around Us , 1997, Science.

[49]  G. Pellegrino,et al.  Peripersonal space in the brain , 2015, Neuropsychologia.

[50]  Robert J. Barry,et al.  Response priming in the Go/NoGo task: The N2 reflects neither inhibition nor conflict , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[51]  Tina Iachini,et al.  Embodied perception of reachable space: how do we manage threatening objects? , 2012, Cognitive Processing.

[52]  W. Prinz,et al.  N400-like negativities in action perception reflect the activation of two components of an action representation , 2009, Social Neuroscience.

[53]  C. Spence,et al.  Prior-entry: A review , 2010, Consciousness and Cognition.

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

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

[56]  L. Riggio,et al.  The role of attention in the occurrence of the affordance effect. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[57]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Visual context modulates potentiation of grasp types during semantic object categorization , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[58]  Lucia Riggio,et al.  Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[59]  Bettina Forster,et al.  An ERP Investigation on Visuotactile Interactions in Peripersonal and Extrapersonal Space: Evidence for the Spatial Rule , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[60]  Guy Vingerhoets,et al.  Perceiving objects by their function: An EEG study on feature saliency and prehensile affordances , 2015, Biological Psychology.

[61]  M. Koivisto,et al.  An ERP study of change detection, change blindness, and visual awareness. , 2003, Psychophysiology.

[62]  R. Verleger,et al.  Effects on P3 of spreading targets and response prompts apart , 2017, Biological Psychology.

[63]  M. Goldberg,et al.  Space and attention in parietal cortex. , 1999, Annual review of neuroscience.

[64]  M. Costantini,et al.  The space of affordances: A TMS study , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[65]  R. Andersen,et al.  The posterior parietal cortex: Sensorimotor interface for the planning and online control of visually guided movements , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[66]  Peng Liu,et al.  Response inhibition or evaluation of danger? An event-related potential study regarding the origin of the motor interference effect from dangerous objects , 2017, Brain Research.

[67]  Dylan F. Cooke,et al.  Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[68]  F Rösler,et al.  Processing of incongruous mental calculation problems: evidence for an arithmetic N400 effect. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[69]  Roberta Adorni,et al.  Is there a left hemispheric asymmetry for tool affordance processing? , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[70]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Conflict in the kitchen: Contextual modulation of responsiveness to affordances , 2016, Consciousness and Cognition.

[71]  Y. Coello,et al.  Conflict between object structural and functional affordances in peripersonal space , 2016, Cognition.

[72]  Afdc Hamilton,et al.  The motor hierarchy: from kinematics to goals and intentions , 2007 .

[73]  R. Likert “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[74]  Ashwin G Ramayya,et al.  A DTI investigation of neural substrates supporting tool use. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[75]  S. Anderson,et al.  Attentional processes link perception and action , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[76]  E. Knudsen Fundamental components of attention. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[77]  C. Haenschel,et al.  Objects rapidly prime the motor system when located near the dominant hand , 2017, Brain and Cognition.

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

[79]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Premotor Cortex Activation during Observation and Naming of Familiar Tools , 1997, NeuroImage.

[80]  G. Harris,et al.  Response inhibition in psychopathy: The frontal N2 and P3 , 2007, Neuroscience Letters.

[81]  Blake W. Johnson,et al.  High-density mapping in an N400 paradigm: evidence for bilateral temporal lobe generators , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[82]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Spatial covert attention increases contrast sensitivity across the CSF: support for signal enhancement , 2000, Vision Research.

[83]  T. Hubbard Giving Cognition a Hand 1 RUNNING HEAD: Giving Cognition a Hand Giving Cognition a Hand: A Review of Ellis' (2018) Bodies and Other Objects: The Sensorimotor Foundations of Cognition , 2019 .

[84]  Harold Bekkering,et al.  Action semantics: A unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge. , 2014, Physics of life reviews.

[85]  A. Ohman,et al.  Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[86]  Fred H. Previc,et al.  The Neuropsychology of 3-D Space , 1998 .

[87]  Peng Liu,et al.  A sequential trial effect based on the motor interference effect from dangerous objects: An ERP study , 2018, Brain and behavior.

[88]  Gaetano Tieri,et al.  Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[89]  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.

[90]  J. Polich Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[91]  Eric Achten,et al.  Cerebral lateralization of praxis in right‐ and left‐handedness: Same pattern, different strength , 2012, Human brain mapping.

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

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

[94]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[95]  François Osiurak,et al.  What is an affordance? 40 years later , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

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

[97]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  Intention-based and stimulus-based mechanisms in action selection , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[98]  R. Ellis,et al.  Action priming by briefly presented objects. , 2004, Acta psychologica.

[99]  L. Wheaton,et al.  The Role of Attention and Saccades on Parietofrontal Encoding of Contextual and Grasp-specific Affordances of Tools: An ERP Study , 2018, Neuroscience.

[100]  Anna M. Borghi,et al.  Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances , 2012, Consciousness and Cognition.

[101]  Ying Choon Wu,et al.  Are depictive gestures like pictures? Commonalities and differences in semantic processing , 2011, Brain and Language.

[102]  D. Bub,et al.  Grasping beer mugs: on the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[103]  R. Ellis Bodies and Other Objects , 2018 .

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

[105]  G. Mangun,et al.  Luminance and spatial attention effects on early visual processing. , 1995, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[106]  J. Hinojosa,et al.  A close look into the near/far space division: A real-distance ERP study , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[107]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Parietal Lobe: From Action Organization to Intention Understanding , 2005, Science.

[108]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[109]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Potential threat attracts attention and interferes with voluntary saccades. , 2015, Emotion.

[110]  Rolf Verleger,et al.  Effects of relevance and response frequency on P3b amplitudes: Review of findings and comparison of hypotheses about the process reflected by P3b. , 2020, Psychophysiology.

[111]  Phillip J Holcomb,et al.  Semantic integration in videos of real-world events: an electrophysiological investigation. , 2003, Psychophysiology.

[112]  A. Proverbio Tool perception suppresses 10–12Hz μ rhythm of EEG over the somatosensory area , 2012, Biological Psychology.

[113]  Ed Symes,et al.  Dissociating object-based and space-based affordances , 2005 .

[114]  I. Blanchette Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: How specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of threatening stimuli? , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[115]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. , 1999, Acta psychologica.