Viewing objects and planning actions: On the potentiation of grasping behaviours by visual objects (original) (raw)
2011, Brain and cognition
How do humans interact with tools? Gibson (1979) suggested that humans perceive directly what tools afford in terms of meaningful actions. This “affordances” hypothesis implies that visual objects can potentiate motor responses even in the absence of an intention to act. Here we explore the temporal evolution of motor plans afforded by common objects. We presented objects that have a strong significance for action (pinching and grasping) and objects with no such significance. Two experimental tasks involved participants viewing objects presented on a computer screen. For the first task, they were instructed to respond rapidly to changes in background colour by using an apparatus mimicking precision and power grip responses. For the second task, they received stimulation of their primary motor cortex using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) while passively viewing the objects. Muscular responses (motor evoked potentials: MEPs) were recorded from two intrinsic hand muscles (associated with either a precision or power grip). The data showed an interaction between type of response (or muscle) and type of object, with both reaction time and MEP measures implying the generation of a congruent motor plan in the period immediately after object presentation. The results provide further support for the notion that the physical properties of objects automatically activate specific motor codes, but also demonstrate that this influence is rapid and relatively short lived.► How do objects automatically activate specific motor plans known as “affordances”? ► Task-irrelevant pictures shown to activate congruent grip actions. ► Affordance effect evident in both RTs and motor evoked potentials. ► Affordance effect arises rapidly and also dissipates quickly. ► Affordance effect evident for separate hand actions generated in the same hemisphere.
Related papers
Interaction between affordance and handedness recognition: a chronometric study
The visualization of tools and manipulable objects activates motor-related areas in the cortex, facilitating possible actions toward them. This pattern of activity may underlie the phenomenon of object affordance. Some cortical motor neurons are also covertly activated during the recognition of body parts such as hands. One hypothesis is that different subpopulations of motor neurons in the frontal cortex are activated in each motor program; for example, canonical neurons in the premotor cortex are responsible for the affordance of visual objects, while mirror neurons support motor imagery triggered during handedness recognition. However, the question remains whether these subpopulations work independently. This hypothesis can be tested with a manual reaction time (MRT) task with a priming paradigm to evaluate whether the view of a manipulable object interferes with the motor imagery of the subject’s hand. The MRT provides a measure of the course of information processing in the brain and allows indirect evaluation of cognitive processes. Our results suggest that canonical and mirror neurons work together to create a motor plan involving hand movements to facilitate successful object manipulation.
Conflict in object affordance revealed by grip force
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2011
Viewing objects can result in automatic, partial activation of motor plans associated with them—“object affordance”. Here, we recorded grip force simultaneously from both hands in an object affordance task to investigate the effects of conflict between coactivated responses. Participants classified pictures of objects by squeezing force transducers with their left or right hand. Responses were faster on trials where the object afforded an action with the same hand that was required to make the response (congruent trials) compared to the opposite hand (incongruent trials). In addition, conflict between coactivated responses was reduced if it was experienced on the preceding trial, just like Gratton adaptation effects reported in “conflict” tasks (e.g., Eriksen flanker). This finding suggests that object affordance demonstrates conflict effects similar to those shown in other stimulus–response mapping tasks and thus could be integrated into the wider conceptual framework on overlearnt stimulus–response associations. Corrected erroneous responses occurred more frequently when there was conflict between the afforded response and the response required by the task, providing direct evidence that viewing an object activates motor plans appropriate for interacting with that object. Recording continuous grip force, as here, provides a sensitive way to measure coactivated responses in affordance tasks.
Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms
Stimulus position is coded even if it is task-irrelevant, leading to faster response times when the stimulus and the response locations are compatible (spatial Stimulus–Response Compatibility–spatial SRC). Faster responses are also found when the handle of a visual object and the response hand are located on the same side; this is known as affordance effect (AE). Two contrasting accounts for AE have been classically proposed. One is focused on the recruitment of appropriate grasping actions on the object handle, and the other on the asymmetry in the object shape, which in turn would cause a handle-hand correspondence effect (CE). In order to disentangle these two accounts, we investigated the possible transfer of practice in a spatial SRC task executed with a S–R incompatible mapping to a subsequent affordance task in which objects with either their intact handle or a broken one were used. The idea was that using objects with broken handles should prevent the recruitment of motor information relative to object grasping, whereas practice transfer should prevent object asymmetry in driving handle-hand CE. A total of three experiments were carried out. In Experiment 1 participants underwent an affordance task in which common graspable objects with their intact or broken handle were used. In Experiments 2 and 3, the affordance task was preceded by a spatial SRC task in which an incompatible S–R mapping was used. Inter-task delays of 5 or 30 min were employed to assess the duration of transfer effect. In Experiment 2 objects with their intact handle were presented, whereas in Experiment 3 the same objects had their handle broken. Although objects with intact and broken handles elicited a handle-hand CE in Experiment 1, practice transfer from an incompatible spatial SRC to the affordance task was found in Experiment 3 (broken-handle objects), but not in Experiment 2 (intact-handle objects). Overall, this pattern of results indicate that both object asymmetry and the activation of motor information contribute to the generation of the handle-hand CE effect, and that the handle AE cannot be reduced to a SRC effect.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.