Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 207, Issue 1–2, pp 95–103

Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space

  • Marcello Costantini
  • Ettore Ambrosini
  • Gaetano Tieri
  • Corrado Sinigaglia
  • Giorgia Committeri
Research Article

Abstract

A series of experiments provide evidence that affordances rely not only on the mutual appropriateness of the features of an object and the abilities of an individual, but also on the fact that those features fall within her own reachable space, thus being really ready-to-her-own-hand. We used a spatial alignment effect paradigm and systematically examined this effect when the visually presented object was located either within or outside the peripersonal space of the participants, both from a metric (Experiment 1) and from a functional point of view (Experiment 2). We found that objectual features evoke actions only when the object is presented within the portion of the peripersonal space that is effectively reachable by the participants. Experiments 3 and 4 ruled out that our results could be merely accounted for by differences in the visual salience of the presented objects. Our data suggest that the power of an object to automatically trigger an action is strictly linked to the effective possibility that an individual has to interact with it.

Keywords

Affordance Peripersonal space Action representation 

References

  1. Ackroyd K, Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW, Nightingale S, Townsend S (2002) Widening the sphere of influence: using a tool to extend extrapersonal visual space in a patient with severe neglect. Neurocase 8:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berti A, Frassinetti F (2000) When far becomes near: remapping of space by tool use. J Cogn Neurosci 12:415–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brass M, Bekkering H, Wohlschlager A, Prinz W (2000) Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain Cogn 44:124–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bub DN, Masson MEJ (2010) Grasping beer mugs: on the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chemero A (2001) What We Perceive When We Perceive Affordances: Commentary on Michaels “Information, Perception, and Action”. Ecol Psychol 13:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chemero A (2003) An Outline of a Theory of Affordances. Ecol Psychol 15:181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chemero A (2009) Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Costantini M, Sinigaglia C (in press) Grasping affordance: a window onto social cognition. In: Joint attention: new developments. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Craighero L, Bello A, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G (2002) Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia 40:492–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis R, Tucker M (2000) Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects. Br J Psychol 91(Pt 4):451–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Farnè A, Ladavas E (2000) Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. Neuroreport 11:1645–1649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Farnè A, Iriki A, Ladavas E (2005) Shaping multisensory action-space with tools: evidence from patients with cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia 43:238–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Farnè A, Serino A, Ladavas E (2007) Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space following tool-use: determinants and spatial characteristics revealed through cross-modal extinction. Cortex 43:436–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fogassi L, Gallese V, di Pellegrino G, Fadiga L, Gentilucci M, Luppino G, Matelli M, Pedotti A, Rizzolatti G (1992) Space coding by premotor cortex. Exp Brain Res 89:686–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Galati G, Committeri G, Spitoni G, Aprile T, Di Russo F, Pitzalis S, Pizzamiglio L (2008) A selective representation of the meaning of actions in the auditory mirror system. Neuroimage 40:1274–1286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentilucci M, Fogassi L, Luppino G, Matelli M, Camarda R, Rizzolatti G (1988) Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey. I. Somatotopy and the control of proximal movements. Exp Brain Res 71:475–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson J (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Graziano MS, Yap GS, Gross CG (1994) Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science 266:1054–1057CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gross CG, Graziano MSA (1995) Multiple representations of space in the brain. Neuroscientist 1:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y (1996) Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport 7:2325–2330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeannerod M (1988) The neural and behavioural organization of goal-directed movements. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeannerod M, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G, Sakata H (1995) Grasping objects: the cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation. Trends Neurosci 18:314–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Linkenauger SA, Witt JK, Stefanucci JK, Bakdash JZ, Proffitt DR (2009) The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:1649–1660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Maravita A, Spence C, Kennett S, Driver J (2002) Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition 83:B25–B34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Maravita A, Spence C, Driver J (2003) Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Curr Biol 13:R531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Michaels CF, Zeinstra EB, Oudejans RR (2001) Information and action in punching a falling ball. Q J Exp Psychol A 54:69–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Neppi-Mòdona M, Rabuffetti M, Folegatti A, Ricci R, Spinazzola L, Schiavone F, Ferrarin M, Berti A (2007) Bisecting lines with different tools in right brain damaged patients: the role of action programming and sensory feedback in modulating spatial remapping. Cortex 43:397–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pegna AJ, Petit L, Caldara-Schnetzer AS, Khateb A, Annoni JM, Sztajzel R, Landis T (2001) So near yet so far: neglect in far or near space depends on tool use. Ann Neurol 50:820–822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rizzolatti G, Berti A (1990) Neglect as a neural representation deficit. Rev Neurol (Paris) 146:626–634Google Scholar
  30. Rizzolatti G, Sinigaglia C (2008) Mirrors in the brain. How our minds share actions and emotions. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V (1997) The space around us. Science 277:190–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Serino A, Bassolino M, Farne A, Ladavas E (2007) Extended multisensory space in blind cane users. Psychol Sci 18:642–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaw R, Turvey M, Mace W (1982) Ecological psychology: the consequence of a commitment to realism. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Stins JF, Michaels CF (1997) Stimulus-target compatibility for reaching movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:756–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sturmer B, Aschersleben G, Prinz W (2000) Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1746–1759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tucker M, Ellis R (2001) The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cogn 8:769–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turvey M (1992) Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Echol Psychol 4:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turvey MT, Shaw RE, Reed ES, Mace WM (1981) Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: in reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981). Cognition 9:237–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. van Schie HT, van Waterschoot BM, Bekkering H (2008) Understanding action beyond imitation: reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:1493–1500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Vogt S, Taylor P, Hopkins B (2003) Visuomotor priming by pictures of hand postures: perspective matters. Neuropsychologia 41:941–951CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Witt JK, Proffitt DR (2008) Action-specific influences on distance perception: a role for motor simulation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:1479–1492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Witt JK, Proffitt DR, Epstein W (2005) Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:880–888CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcello Costantini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ettore Ambrosini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gaetano Tieri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Corrado Sinigaglia
    • 3
  • Giorgia Committeri
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neuroscience and ImagingUniversity G. d’AnnunzioChietiItaly
  2. 2.Institute for Advanced Biomedical Technologies, ITABFoundation University G. d’AnnunzioChietiItaly
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations