Categorization and action: what about object consistence?

Categorization studies have focused on the importance of a variety of perceptual properties (shape, size, weight). The present study explored whether the softness or hardness of an object might influence the way we categorize and consider category members. Of additional interest was whether information on consistence is automatically activated and whether it is modulated by the kind of task and of response modality. Three experiments demonstrated that information on consistence is automatically activated, and it helps us to distinguish between artefacts and natural objects. Interestingly, the results are in agreement with the simulation hypothesis; namely, when we consider artefacts, we simulate using them and information on their consistence is activated; this simulation is modulated by the task. The way we differently process artefacts and natural objects across the experiments confirms the simulation hypothesis and our sensitivity to the response modality.

[1]  Roberta Michnick Golinkoff,et al.  Becoming a word learner : a debate on lexical acquisition , 2000 .

[2]  J. Mandler How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. , 1992, Psychological review.

[3]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  The mirror-neuron system. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[4]  Olaf B. Paulson,et al.  Shape configuration and category-specificity , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  R. Nicoletti,et al.  Emotive concept nouns and motor responses: Attraction or repulsion? , 2009, Memory & cognition.

[6]  Philippe Rochat,et al.  Mouthing and grasping in neonates: Evidence for the early detection of what hard or soft substances afford for action , 1987 .

[7]  Sandro Rubichi,et al.  8. Do we access object manipulability while we categorize? Evidence from reaction time studies , 2007 .

[8]  A. Goldman,et al.  Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The importance of shape in early lexical learning , 1988 .

[10]  Joan Gay Snodgrass,et al.  Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures , 1996 .

[11]  B. Hommel Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding) , 2009, Psychological research.

[12]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Similarity, Typicality, and Category-Level Matching of Morphed Outlines of Everyday Objects , 2008, Perception.

[13]  Laurie R Santos,et al.  Recognition and categorization of biologically significant objects by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): the domain of food , 2001, Cognition.

[14]  Umberto Castiello,et al.  Adjusting reach to lift movements to sudden visible changes in target’s weight , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[16]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Perceptual differentiation as a source of category effects in object processing: Evidence from naming and object decision , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[17]  S. Gelman,et al.  On wooden pillows: multiple classification and children's category-based inductions. , 1992, Child development.

[18]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Cascade processes in picture identification , 1988 .

[19]  Olaf B. Paulson,et al.  Structural similarity and category-specificity: a refined account , 2004, Neuropsychologia.

[20]  Lisa M Oakes,et al.  Infants flexibly use different dimensions to categorize objects. , 2006, Developmental psychology.

[21]  Andrea C. Schalley,et al.  Mental states: Evolution, function, nature , 2007 .

[22]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  The representation of subordinate shape similarity in human occipitotemporal cortex. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[23]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Linguistic Cues Enhance the Learning of Perceptual Cues , 2005, Psychological science.

[24]  Marc Jeannerod,et al.  Being oneself , 2007, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[25]  A. Borghi,et al.  Is a small apple more like an apple or more like a cherry ? , 2007 .

[26]  L. Vainio,et al.  On the relations between action planning, object identification, and motor representations of observed actions and objects , 2008, Cognition.

[27]  Z Kourtzi,et al.  Visual representation of malleable and rigid objects that deform as they rotate. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  M. H. Fischer,et al.  Linguistic Relativity: Does Language Help or Hinder Perception? , 2006, Current Biology.

[29]  I Law,et al.  Categorization and category effects in normal object recognition A PET Study , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  E. Gibson,et al.  Development of knowledge of visual-tactual affordances of substance. , 1984, Child development.

[31]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Action recognition in the premotor cortex. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[32]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[33]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object properties and knowledge in early lexical learning. , 1991, Child development.

[34]  M. Ernst,et al.  The statistical determinants of adaptation rate in human reaching. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[35]  N. Soja Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax , 1992 .

[36]  Claudia Scorolli,et al.  Language-induced motor activity in bi-manual object lifting , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[37]  Linda B. Smith Action Alters Shape Categories , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[38]  Christian Gerlach,et al.  Category-specificity in visual object recognition , 2009, Cognition.

[39]  R VanRullen,et al.  Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane? Ultra-Rapid Visual Categorisation of Natural and Artifactual Objects , 2001, Perception.

[40]  R. Johansson,et al.  Cortical activity in precision- versus power-grip tasks: an fMRI study. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[41]  Sandro Rubichi,et al.  Are visual stimuli sufficient to evoke motor information? Studies with hand primes , 2007, Neuroscience Letters.