Investigating Grounded Conceptualization: Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Tool Handles Is Due to Spatial Attention

Brain imaging research shows that viewing tools activates regions of the cortex implicated in performing actions with that tool. Grounded (or embodied) theories of cognition propose that this activity reflects the activation of motor representations that are constitutive of the object concept. Behaviorally, participants respond faster with the hand that is aligned with the handle of an object. This stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) effect is often taken as evidence supporting the hypothesis that motor representations are activated in response to the visual presentation of tools during conceptual processing. To test this hypothesis, we trained participants to use a set of novel tools (manipulation group) or to report spatial information about the tools (spatial group) in preparation for a Martian archeological dig. We investigated compatibility effects in a conceptual judgment task and a visual discrimination task. Compatibility effects were observed for both groups regardless of experience. These effects were predicted by the salient parts of objects specified by task demands and not by motor experience with the objects. This result provides evidence that compatibility effects with tools reflect a general stimulus–response compatibly effect due to visual attention.

[1]  Martin H. Fischer,et al.  The time course of visuo-motor affordances , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  Guy Vingerhoets,et al.  Knowing about tools: Neural correlates of tool familiarity and experience , 2008, NeuroImage.

[3]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Discrimination Training Alters Object Representations in Human Extrastriate Cortex , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[5]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  The theory of event coding (TEC) as embodied-cognition framework , 2015, Front. Psychol..

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

[7]  Lucia Riggio,et al.  Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[8]  M. Kiefer,et al.  Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions , 2012, Cortex.

[9]  Aaron J. Newman,et al.  Handles of manipulable objects attract covert visual attention: ERP evidence , 2014, Brain and Cognition.

[10]  E Rounis,et al.  A direct effect of perception on action when grasping a cup , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Sharon L. Thompson-Schill,et al.  fMRI-adaptation evidence of overlapping neural representations for objects related in function or manipulation , 2010, NeuroImage.

[12]  Sally A. Linkenauger,et al.  A Functional Role for Motor Simulation in Identifying Tools , 2010, Psychological science.

[13]  Diane Pecher,et al.  Curb Your Embodiment , 2018, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[14]  Markus Graf,et al.  The role of action representations in visual object recognition , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[16]  Zissis Pappas.  Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: Silhouettes and photographs , 2014, Cognition.

[17]  Liang Zhao,et al.  The role of the action context in object affordance , 2018, Psychological Research.

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

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

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

[21]  Elizabeth J. Saccone,et al.  Explicit spatial compatibility is not critical to the object handle effect. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  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.

[23]  Jacqueline C Snow,et al.  Attentional capture for tool images is driven by the head end of the tool, not the handle , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[24]  Yury Shtyrov,et al.  The role of executive control in the activation of manual affordances , 2016, Psychological Research.

[25]  Sharon L. Thompson-Schill,et al.  Investigating grounded conceptualization: motor system state-dependence facilitates familiarity judgments of novel tools , 2018, Psychological Research.

[26]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Mental imaging of motor activity in humans , 1999, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

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

[28]  Yusuke Yamani,et al.  Object Affordances Potentiate Responses but Do Not Guide Attentional Prioritization , 2016, Front. Integr. Neurosci..

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

[30]  Antonello Pellicano,et al.  Location-Coding Account Versus Affordance-Activation Account in Handle-to-Hand Correspondence Effects: Evidence of Simon-Like Effects Based on the Coding of Action Direction , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Daniel N. Bub,et al.  Components of action representations evoked when identifying manipulable objects , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[32]  M Gentilucci,et al.  Influence of automatic word reading on motor control , 1998, The European journal of neuroscience.

[33]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

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

[35]  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.

[36]  Michael E J Masson,et al.  A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[37]  Robyn T. Oliver,et al.  Remembrance of things touched: How sensorimotor experience affects the neural instantiation of object form , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[38]  Alfred B. Yu,et al.  Limits on action priming by pictures of objects. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  S. Thompson-Schill,et al.  Manual Experience Shapes Object Representations , 2013, Psychological science.

[40]  D. Bub,et al.  On the dynamics of action representations evoked by names of manipulable objects. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[41]  L. Craighero,et al.  Electrophysiology of Action Representation , 2004, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[42]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[43]  B. Mesquita,et al.  Adjustment to Chronic Diseases and Terminal Illness Health Psychology : Psychological Adjustment to Chronic Disease , 2006 .

[44]  Daria Proklova,et al.  Disentangling Representations of Object Shape and Object Category in Human Visual Cortex: The Animate–Inanimate Distinction , 2016, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[46]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Further evidence that object-based correspondence effects are primarily modulated by object location not by grasping affordance , 2014 .

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

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

[49]  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.

[50]  William W. Graves,et al.  Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[51]  Michael Gasser,et al.  The Development of Embodied Cognition: Six Lessons from Babies , 2005, Artificial Life.

[52]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Embodiment and Grounding in Cognitive Neuroscience , 2018 .

[53]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  Six views of embodied cognition , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

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

[57]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Grasp Representations Depend on Knowledge and Attention , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[58]  Daniel N Bub,et al.  Time Course of Motor Affordances Evoked by Pictured Objects and Words , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[59]  Diane Pecher,et al.  Alignment effects in beer mugs: Automatic action activation or response competition? , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[60]  Kiril Kostov,et al.  Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects , 2015, Cognitive Processing.

[61]  R. H. Baayen.  Analyzing Linguistic Data: Preface , 2008 .

[62]  M. Rugg,et al.  Moving Forward With fMRI Data , 2013, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[63]  B. Bahrami,et al.  Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics , 2012, Cortex.

[64]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  Critical brain regions for tool-related and imitative actions: a componential analysis. , 2014, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[65]  P. Mcmullen,et al.  Accessing embodied object representations from vision: A review. , 2015, Psychological bulletin.

[66]  Guido Gainotti,et al.  Controversies over the mechanisms underlying the crucial role of the left fronto-parietal areas in the representation of tools , 2013, Front. Psychol..

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

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

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

[70]  Russell V. Lenth,et al.  Least-Squares Means: The R Package lsmeans , 2016 .

[71]  A. Damasio,et al.  Convergence and divergence in a neural architecture for recognition and memory , 2009, Trends in Neurosciences.

[72]  Vittorio Gallese,et al.  Do already grasped objects activate motor affordances? , 2018, Psychological Research.

[73]  Yu Kume,et al.  Spatial compatibility and affordance compatibility in patients with chronic schizophrenia. , 2016, Asian journal of psychiatry.

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

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

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

[77]  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.

[78]  Nicholas P. Holmes,et al.  Dissociating between object affordances and spatial compatibility effects using early response components , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[79]  Samuel Couth,et al.  Dissociating affordance and spatial compatibility effects using a pantomimed reaching action , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[80]  N. White,et al.  A test of the embodied simulation theory of object perception: potentiation of responses to artifacts and animals , 2014, Psychological research.

[81]  S. Thompson-Schill.  Neuroimaging studies of semantic memory: inferring “how” from “where” , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[82]  E. Wagenmakers.  A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[83]  Diane Pecher,et al.  The Role of Motor Action in Memory for Objects and Words , 2016 .

[84]  Sharon L. Thompson-Schill,et al.  Color, Context, and Cognitive Style: Variations in Color Knowledge Retrieval as a Function of Task and Subject Variables , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[85]  Greg O. Horne,et al.  Controlling low-level image properties: The SHINE toolbox , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[86]  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.

[87]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based correspondence effects? , 2017, Cognition.

[88]  J. Decety,et al.  Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: A meta‐analysis , 2001, Human brain mapping.