Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 229, Issue 4, pp 545–559 | Cite as

Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects

  • Andriy Myachykov
  • Rob Ellis
  • Angelo Cangelosi
  • Martin H. Fischer
Research Article


Two experiments investigated (1) how activation of manual affordances is triggered by visual and linguistic cues to manipulable objects and (2) whether graspable object parts play a special role in this process. Participants pressed a key to categorize manipulable target objects copresented with manipulable distractor objects on a computer screen. Three factors were varied in Experiment 1: (1) the target’s and (2) the distractor’s handles’ orientation congruency with the lateral manual response and (3) the Visual Focus on one of the objects. In Experiment 2, a linguistic cue factor was added to these three factors—participants heard the name of one of the two objects prior to the target display onset. Analysis of participants’ motor and oculomotor behaviour confirmed that perceptual and linguistic cues potentiated activation of grasp affordances. Both target- and distractor-related affordance effects were modulated by the presence of visual and linguistic cues. However, a differential visual attention mechanism subserved activation of compatibility effects associated with target and distractor objects. We also registered an independent implicit attention attraction effect from objects’ handles, suggesting that graspable parts automatically attract attention during object viewing. This effect was further amplified by visual but not linguistic cues, thus providing initial evidence for a recent hypothesis about differential roles of visual and linguistic information in potentiating stable and variable affordances (Borghi in Language and action in cognitive neuroscience. Psychology Press, London, 2012).


Grasp affordances Naming Visual attention Object categorization 


  1. Adamo M, Ferber S (2009) A picture says more than a thousand words: behavioural and ERP evidence for attentional enhancements due to action affordances. Neuropsychologia 47:1600–1608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrosini E, Scorolli C, Borghi AM, Costantini M (2012) Which body for embodied cognition? Affordance and language within actual and perceived reaching space. Conscious Cogn 21:1551–1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson SJ, Yamagishi N, Karavia V (2002) Attentional processes link perception and action. Proc R Soc Ser B 269:1225–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annett M (1970) A classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br J Psychol 61:303–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsalou LW (2008) Grounded cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:617–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borghi AM (2012) Action language comprehension affordances and goals. In: Coello Y, Bartolo A (eds) Language and action in cognitive neuroscience. Psychology Press, London, pp 531–556Google Scholar
  7. Borghi AM, Riggio L (2009) Sentence comprehension and simulation of object temporary canonical and stable affordances. Brain Res 1253:117–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bub DN, Masson MEJ (2010) Grasping beer mugs: on the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:341–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bub DN, Masson MEJ, Cree GS (2008) Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition 106:27–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Costantini M, Ambrosini E, Scorolli C, Borghi AM (2011) When objects are close to me: affordances in the peripersonal space. Psychon Bull Rev 18:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craighero L, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G, Umiltà C (1999) Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1673–1692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craighero L, Bello A, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G (2002) Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia 40:492–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creem SH, Proffitt DR (2001) Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:218–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Derbyshire N, Ellis R, Tucker M (2006) The potentiation of two components of the reach-to-grasp action during object categorisation in visual memory. Acta Psychol 122(1):74–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. di Pellegrino G, Rafal R, Tipper SP (2005) Implicitly evoked actions modulate visual selection: evidence from parietal extinction. Curr Biol 15(16):469–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis R, Tucker M (2000) Micro-affordance: the potentiation of actions by seen objects. Br J Psychol 91:451–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellis R, Tucker M, Symes E, Vainio L (2007) Does selecting one visual object from several require inhibition of the actions associated with non-selected objects? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:670–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferri F, Riggio L, Gallese V, Costantini M (2011) Objects and their nouns in peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia 49:3519–3524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer B, Breitmeyer B (1987) Mechanisms of visual attention revealed by saccadic eye movements. Neuropsychologia 25:73–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer MH, Dahl C (2007) The time course of visuo-motor affordances. Exp Brain Res 176(3):519–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Glover S, Dixon P (2002) Semantics affect the planning but not control of grasping. Exp Brain Res 146:383–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glover S, Rosenbaum DA, Graham J, Dixon P (2004) Grasping the meaning of words. Exp Brain Res 154:103–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodale MA (2011) Transforming vision into action. Vis Res 51:1567–1587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Handy TC, Grafton ST, Shroff NM, Ketay S, Gazzaniga MS (2003) Graspable objects grasp attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nat Neurosci 6:421–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Handy TC, Borg JS, Turk DJ, Tipper CM, Grafton ST, Gazzaniga MS (2005) Placing a tool in the spotlight: spatial attention modulates visuomotor responses in cortex. NeuroImage 26:266–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hommel B (1993) The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychol Res 55:208–222 Google Scholar
  28. Humphreys GW, Yoon EY, Kumar S, Lestou V, Kitadono K, Roberts KL, Riddoch MJ (2010) The interaction of attention and action: from seeing action to acting on perception. Br J Psychol 101:185–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klatzky RL, Pellegrino JW, McCloskey BP, Doherty S (1989) Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgments. J Mem Lang 28:56–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kostov K, Janyan A (2012) The role of attention in the affordance effect: can we afford to ignore it? Cogn Process 13:S215–S218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindemann O, Stenneken P, van Schie H, Bekkering H (2006) Semantic activation in action planning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(3):633–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loach D, Bruce N, Tsotsos JK (2008) An attentional mechanism for selecting appropriate actions afforded by graspable objects. Psychol Sci 19:1253–1257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin A (2007) The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol 58:25–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Masson MEJ, Bub DN, Newton-Taylor M (2008a) Language-based access to gestural components of conceptual knowledge. Q J Exp Psychol 71:869–882Google Scholar
  35. Masson MEJ, Bub DN, Warren CM (2008b) Kicking calculators: contribution of embodied representations to sentence comprehension. J Mem Lang 59:256–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Michaels CF (1989) S-R compatibilities depend on eccentricity of responding hand. Q J Exp Psychol 41(2):263–272Google Scholar
  37. Michaels CF (1993) Destination compatibility affordances and coding rules—a reply. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19(5):1121–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neumann E, DeSchepper BG (1992) An inhibition-based fan effect: evidence for an active suppression mechanism in selective attention. Can J Psychol 46:1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pappas Z, Mack A (2008) Potentiation of action by undetected affordant objects. Vis Cognit 16(7):892–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Phillips JC, Ward R (2002) S-r correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Vis Cognit 9(4–5):540–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Posner MI, Cohen Y (1984) Components of visual orienting. In: Bouma H, Bowhui DG (eds) Attention and performance, vol X. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 531–556Google Scholar
  42. Riggio L, Patteri I, Oppo A, Buccino G, Umilta C (2006) The role of affordances in inhibition of return. Psychon Bull Rev 13:1085–1090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riggio C, Iani E, Gherri F, Benatti S, Rubichi R, Nicoletti R (2008) The role of attention in the occurrence of the affordance effect. Acta Psychol 127:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roth HL, Lora AN, Heilman KM (2002) Effects of monocular viewing and eye dominance on spatial attention. Brain 125:2023–2035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schuch S, Bayliss AP, Klein C, Tipper SP (2010) Attention modulates motor system activation during action observation: evidence for inhibitory rebound. Exp Brain Res 205:235–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Singhal A, Culham JC, Chinellato E, Goodale MA (2007) Dual-task interference is greater in delayed grasping than in visually guided grasping. J Vis 7(5):1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Symes E, Tucker M, Ellis R, Vainio L, Ottoboni G (2008) Grasp preparation improves change detection for congruent objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34(4):854–871PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Symes E, Ottoboni G, Tucker M, Ellis R, Tessari A (2010) When motor attention improves selective attention: the dissociating role of saliency. Q J Exp Psychol 63(7):1387–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thill S, Caligiore D, Borghi AM, Ziemke T, Baldassarre G (2013) Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: an integrative review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37:491–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tipper SP, Weaver B, Cameron S, Brehaut JC, Bastedo J (1991) Inhibitory mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: time course and disruption. J Exp Psychol. Learn Mem Cognit 17(4):681–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tipper SP, Paul MA, Hayes AE (2006) Vision for action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychon Bull Rev 13(3):493–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tschentscher N, Fischer MH (2008) Grasp cueing and joint attention. Exp Brain Res (Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Expérimentation cérébrale) 190(4):493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tucker M, Ellis R (2001) The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Vis Cognit 8:769–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tucker M, Ellis R (2004) Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychol 116:185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vainio L, Ellis R, Tucker M (2007) The role of visual attention in action priming. Q J Exp Psychol 60:241–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andriy Myachykov
    • 1
  • Rob Ellis
    • 2
  • Angelo Cangelosi
    • 3
  • Martin H. Fischer
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  3. 3.School of Computing and MathematicsUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  4. 4.Division of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations