Further evidence that object-based correspondence effects are primarily modulated by object location not by grasping affordance

Tipper, Paul and Hayes found object-based correspondence effects for door-handle stimuli for shape judgments but not colour. They reasoned that a grasping affordance is activated when judging dimensions related to a grasping action (shape), but not for other dimensions (colour). Cho and Proctor, however, found the effect with respect to handle position when the bases of the door handles were centred (so handles were positioned left or right; the base-centred condition) but not when the handles were centred (the object-centred condition), suggesting that the effect is driven by object location, not grasping affordance. We conducted an independent replication of Cho and Proctor's design, but with behavioural and event-related potential measures. Participants made shape judgments in Experiment 1 and colour judgments in Experiment 2 on the same door-handle objects. Correspondence effects on response time and errors were obtained in both experiments for the base-centred condition but not the object-centred condition. Effects were absent in the P1 and N1 data, which are consistent with the hypothesis of little binding between visual processing of grasping component and action. These findings question the grasping-affordance view but support a spatial-coding view, suggesting that correspondence effects are modulated primarily by object location.

[1]  F. Karayanidis,et al.  Evidence of visual processing negativity with attention to orientation and color in central space. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[2]  Matthias M. Müller,et al.  Concurrent recording of steady-state and transient event-related potentials as indices of visual-spatial selective attention , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[4]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

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

[6]  S J Luck,et al.  Visual event-related potentials index focused attention within bilateral stimulus arrays. II. Functional dissociation of P1 and N1 components. , 1990, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[7]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[9]  Rob Ellis,et al.  The role of visual attention in action priming , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Electrical Signs of Selective Attention in the Human Brain , 1973, Science.

[11]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Psychology’s Woes and a Partial Cure: The Value of Replication , 2012 .

[12]  E. Vogel,et al.  The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[13]  R. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles: Data, Theory, and Application , 2006 .

[14]  R. Proctor,et al.  Object-based correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface-property judgments with keypress responses: evidence for a basis in spatial coding , 2013, Psychological research.

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

[16]  R. Proctor,et al.  Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Marina Schmid,et al.  An Introduction To The Event Related Potential Technique , 2016 .

[18]  Jeffrey R. Spies,et al.  The Replication Recipe: What Makes for a Convincing Replication? , 2014 .

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

[20]  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.

[21]  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.

[22]  G. Humphreys,et al.  The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Object Recognition and Action , 2005 .

[23]  G. Cantor.  On the Relations between , 2008 .

[24]  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.

[25]  G. Mangun.  Neural mechanisms of visual selective attention. , 1995, Psychophysiology.

[26]  S. Luck,et al.  The role of attention in feature detection and conjunction discrimination: an electrophysiological analysis. , 1995, The International journal of neuroscience.

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

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

[29]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Multidimensional vector model of stimulus-response compatibility. , 2012, Psychological review.

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