Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 77, Issue 1, pp 31–39 | Cite as

Bodies and other visual objects: the dialectics of reaching toward objects

  • Rob EllisEmail author
  • Dan Swabey
  • John Bridgeman
  • Benjamin May
  • Mike Tucker
  • Amanda Hyne
Original Article

Abstract

Participants viewed video clips of a left or right-handed reach toward an object that was orientated with a handle to the left or right. They were required to classify the object by making a left or right-handed key-press and ignore the reach. These responses were, never-the-less, affected by the observed reach in ways which largely reflected the opportunities for complementary actions in the viewed scenes, given the simultaneous constraints of the object orientation combined with the direction and hand of reach. These influences are claimed to reflect the interdependency of the action possibilities that arise from a set of objects and agents in three-dimensional space that together determine behaviour.

Keywords

Compatibility Effect Reaction Time Data Mirror Neurone System Object Orientation Power Grip 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bach, P., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2010). The predictive mirror: interactions of mirror and affordance processes during action observation. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 18(1), 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschlager, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44, 124–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruzzo, A., Borghi, A. M., & Ghirlanda, S. (2008). Hand-object interaction in perspective. Neuroscience Letters, 441, 61–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 Psychologica, 122, 74–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91(1), 176–180.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, M. G., Humphreys, G. W., & Castiello, U. (2003). Motor facilitation following action observation: A behavioural study in prehensile action. Brain and Cognition, 53, 495–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 670–691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gazzola, V., & Keysers, C. (2009). The observation and execution of actions share motor and somatosensory voxels in all tested subjects: single-subject analyses of unsmoothed fMRI data. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1239–1255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillmeister, H., Catmur, C., Liepelt, R., Brass, M., & Heyes, C. (2008). Experience-based priming of body parts: a study of action imitation. Brain Research, 1217, 157–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hari, S., Forss, S., Avikainen, S., Kirveskari, E., Salenius, S., & Rizzolatti, G. (1998). Activation of human primary motor cortex during action observation: a neuromagnetic study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 95, 15061–15065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mukamel, R., Ekstrom, A. D., Kaplan, J., Iacoboni, M., & Fried, I. (2010). Single-neuron responses in humans during execution and observation of actions. Current Biology, 20, 750–756.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Newman-Norlund, R. D., Bosga, J., Meulenbroek, R. G. L., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Anatomical substrates of cooperative joint-action in a continuous motor task: Virtual lifting and balancing. NeuroImage, 41, 169–177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Newman-Norlund, R. D., van Schie, H. T., van Zuijlen, A. M. J., & Bekkering, H. (2007). The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 817–818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ocampo, B., & Kritikos, A. (2010). Placing actions in context: motor facilitation following observation of identical and non-identical manual acts. Experimental Brain Research, 201, 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neurone system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: An ERP study of action planning and control in coacting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 859–870.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1978). Methods of modelling capacity in simple processing systems. In N. J. Castellan & F. Restle (Eds.), Cognitive Theory (pp. 199–239). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). Micro-affordance of grasp type in a visual categorisation task. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116, 185–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vainio, L., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2007). The role of visual attention in action priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vainio, L., Symes, E., Ellis, R., Tucker, M., & Ottoboni, G. (2008). On the relations between action planning, object identification, and motor representations of observed actions and objects. Cognition, 108, 444–465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Ellis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dan Swabey
    • 1
  • John Bridgeman
    • 1
  • Benjamin May
    • 1
  • Mike Tucker
    • 1
  • Amanda Hyne
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations