Manipulation gesture effect in visual and auditory presentations: the link between tools in perceptual and motor tasks

There is much behavioral and neurophysiological evidence in support of the idea that seeing a tool activates motor components of action related to the perceived object (e.g., grasping, use manipulation). However, the question remains as to whether the processing of the motor components associated with the tool is automatic or depends on the situation, including the task and the modality of tool presentation. The present study investigated whether the activation of motor components involved in tool use in response to the simple perception of a tool is influenced by the link between prime and target tools, as well as by the modality of presentation, in perceptual or motor tasks. To explore this issue, we manipulated the similarity of gesture involved in the use of the prime and target (identical, similar, different) with two tool presentation modalities of the presentation tool (visual or auditory) in perceptual and motor tasks. Across the experiments, we also manipulated the relevance of the prime (i.e., associated or not with the current task). The participants saw a first tool (or heard the sound it makes), which was immediately followed by a second tool on which they had to perform a perceptual task (i.e., indicate whether the second tool was identical to or different from the first tool) or a motor task (i.e., manipulate the second tool as if it were the first tool). In both tasks, the similarity between the gestures employed for the first and the second tool was manipulated (Identical, Similar or Different gestures). The results showed that responses were faster when the manipulation gestures for the two tools were identical or similar, but only in the motor task. This effect was observed irrespective of the modality of presentation of the first tool, i.e., visual or auditory. We suggest that the influence of manipulation gesture on response time depends on the relevance of the first tool in motor tasks. We discuss these motor activation results in terms of the relevance and demands of the tasks.

[1]  F. Osiurak What Neuropsychology Tells us About Human Tool Use? The Four Constraints Theory (4CT): Mechanics, Space, Time, and Effort , 2014, Neuropsychology Review.

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

[3]  D. Mirman,et al.  Incidental and context-responsive activation of structure- and function-based action features during object identification. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  Perceptions of perceptual symbols , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Andy Clark,et al.  Pressing the Flesh: A Tension in the Study of the Embodied, Embedded Mind?* , 2008 .

[6]  R. Versace,et al.  The contents of long-term memory and the emergence of knowledge , 2009 .

[7]  Luciano Fadiga,et al.  Visuomotor Priming , 2001 .

[8]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.

[9]  Hanna Chainay,et al.  Pointing Treatments Are Task Relevant: A Visuomotor Priming Study , 2014, PloS one.

[10]  Nicolas A. McNair,et al.  Disentangling the contributions of grasp and action representations in the recognition of manipulable objects , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  M. Giard,et al.  Auditory-Visual Integration during Multimodal Object Recognition in Humans: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Study , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  Frank E Garcea,et al.  What is in a tool concept? Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function knowledge , 2012, Memory & Cognition.

[13]  V. Gallese Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience , 2005 .

[14]  Scott H. Frey,et al.  Are tool properties always processed automatically? The role of tool use context and task complexity , 2013, Cortex.

[15]  H Bekkering,et al.  Neural and temporal dynamics underlying visual selection for action. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[16]  R. Versace,et al.  Act-In: An integrated view of memory mechanisms , 2014 .

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

[18]  W. Prinz Perception and Action Planning , 1997 .

[19]  Rajiv Ranganathan,et al.  Grasping possibilities for action: influence of object function and action capabilities. , 2011, Human movement science.

[20]  Markus Graf,et al.  When Action Observation Facilitates Visual Perception: Activation in Visuo-Motor Areas Contributes to Object Recognition. , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[21]  M. Kiefer,et al.  Action observation can prime visual object recognition , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  Visual cognition: a new look at the two-visual systems model , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  M. Goodale,et al.  Two visual systems re-viewed , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  M. Husain,et al.  At the Edge of Consciousness : Automatic Motor Activation and Voluntary Control , 2008 .

[25]  M. Kiefer,et al.  Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[27]  Michael Zehetleitner,et al.  Visuomotor priming effects in grasping depend on the quality of cue processing , 2012 .

[28]  A. Glenberg What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[29]  Luca Turella,et al.  An object for an action, the same object for other actions: effects on hand shaping , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Semantic activation in action planning. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  G. Vingerhoets,et al.  Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances , 2009, Brain and Cognition.

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

[33]  M. Jeannerod,et al.  The motor theory of social cognition: a critique , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[35]  Diane Pecher,et al.  Effects of motor congruence on visual working memory , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[36]  Scott D Slotnick,et al.  Visual memory and visual perception recruit common neural substrates. , 2004, Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews.

[37]  F. Binkofski,et al.  Two action systems in the human brain , 2013, Brain and Language.

[38]  Diane Pecher,et al.  No role for motor affordances in visual working memory. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

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

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

[42]  Elodie Labeye,et al.  Activation and integration of motor components in a short-term priming paradigm. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[43]  J. Belliveau,et al.  Short-term plasticity in auditory cognition , 2007, Trends in Neurosciences.

[44]  David A Rosenbaum,et al.  Grasping movement plans , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[45]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

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

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

[48]  Hanna Chainay,et al.  Visually guided grasping of common objects: Effects of priming , 2013 .

[49]  W. Prinz,et al.  Movements, actions and tool-use actions: an ideomotor approach to imitation , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[50]  Marta Olivetti Belardinelli,et al.  How and when auditory action effects impair motor performance , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[51]  A. Allport,et al.  Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action , 1987 .

[52]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Unconscious Automatic Brain Activation of Acoustic and Action-related Conceptual Features during Masked Repetition Priming , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[53]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Visual Search Is Modulated by Action Intentions , 2002, Psychological science.

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

[55]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Neural representations of graspable objects: are tools special? , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[56]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Codes and their vicissitudes , 2001 .