Alignment effects in beer mugs: Automatic action activation or response competition?

Responses to objects with a graspable handle are faster when the response hand and handle orientation are aligned (e.g., a key press with the right hand is required and the object handle is oriented to the right) than when they are not aligned. This effect could be explained by automatic activation of specific motor programs when an object is viewed. Alternatively, the effect could be explained by competition at the response level. Participants performed a reach-and-grasp or reach-and-button-press action with their left or right hand in response to the color of a beer mug. The alignment effect did not vary as a function of the type of action. In addition, the alignment effect disappeared in a go/no-go version of the task. The same results were obtained when participants made upright/inverted decisions, so that object shape was task-relevant. Our results indicate that alignment effects are not due to automatic motor activation of the left or right limb.

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

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

[3]  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.

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

[5]  D. Bub,et al.  Embodied Effects of Conceptual Knowledge Continuously Perturb the Hand in Flight , 2014, Psychological science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[12]  D. Bub,et al.  Kicking Calculators: Contribution of Embodied Representations to Sentence Comprehension. , 2008 .

[13]  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.

[14]  B. Hommel,et al.  Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control , 2012, Psychological research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[25]  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.

[26]  K. Yarrow,et al.  Viewing objects and planning actions: On the potentiation of grasping behaviours by visual objects , 2011, Brain and Cognition.

[27]  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.

[28]  S. Kornblum,et al.  A Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Stimulus–Stimulus and Stimulus–Response Compatibility , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[30]  U. Ansorge,et al.  A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Reactions toward the source of stimulation. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

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