Abstract
We explored by eye-tracking the visual encoding modalities of participants (N = 20) involved in a free-observation task in which three repetitions of ten unfamiliar graspable objects were administered. Then, we analysed the temporal allocation (t = 1500 ms) of visual-spatial attention to objects’ manipulation (i.e., the part aimed at grasping the object) and functional (i.e., the part aimed at recognizing the function and identity of the object) areas. Within the first 750 ms, participants tended to shift their gaze on the functional areas while decreasing their attention on the manipulation areas. Then, participants reversed this trend, decreasing their visual-spatial attention to the functional areas while fixing the manipulation areas relatively more. Crucially, the global amount of visual-spatial attention for objects’ functional areas significantly decreased as an effect of stimuli repetition while remaining stable for the manipulation areas, thus indicating stimulus familiarity effects. These findings support the action reappraisal theoretical approach, which considers object/tool processing as abilities emerging from semantic, technical/mechanical, and sensorimotor knowledge integration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The spatial disposition we used in this study represents the worst condition should one wish to emphasize semantic effects in modulating the temporal allocation of visual-spatial attention. Hence, we chose the worst experimental scenario with respect to the action reappraisal (Federico & Brandimonte, 2019).
References
Almeida, J., Fintzi, A. R., & Mahon, B. Z. (2013). Tool manipulation knowledge is retrieved by way of the ventral visual object processing pathway. Cortex, 49(9), 2334–2344.
Ambrosini, E., & Costantini, M. (2017). Body posture differentially impacts on visual attention towards tool, graspable, and non-graspable objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 360.
Bar, M., Kassam, K. S., Ghuman, A. S., Boshyan, J., Schmid, A. M., Dale, A. M., Hämäläinen, M. S., Marinkovic, K., Schacter, D. L., Rosen, B. R., & Halgren, E. (2006). Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(2), 449–454.
Bortoletto, M., & Cunnington, R. (2010). Motor timing and motor sequencing contribute differently to the preparation for voluntary movement. NeuroImage, 49(4), 3338–3348.
Caspers, S., Geyer, S., Schleicher, A., Mohlberg, H., Amunts, K., & Zilles, K. (2006). The human inferior parietal cortex: Cytoarchitectonic parcellation and interindividual variability. NeuroImage, 33(2), 430–448.
Chen, Q., Garcea, F. E., Jacobs, R. A., & Mahon, B. Z. (2018). Abstract representations of object-directed action in the left inferior parietal lobule. Cerebral Cortex, 28(6), 2162–2174.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.
De Bellis, F., Magliacano, A., Sagliano, L., Conson, M., Grossi, D., & Trojano, L. (2020). Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: Evidence from rTMS. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84(4), 1006–1019.
Decroix, J., & Kalénine, S. (2019). What first drives visual attention during the recognition of object-directed actions? The role of kinematics and goal information. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2400–2409.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Federico, G., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2019). Tool and object affordances: an ecological eye-tracking study. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103582.
Federico, G., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2020). Looking to recognise: The pre-eminence of semantic over sensorimotor processing in human tool use. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–16.
Federico, G., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2022). Il ruolo del ragionamento e dell’elaborazione semantica nell’uso di utensili: La prospettiva integrata dell’action reappraisal. TOPIC-Temi Di Psicologia Dell’ordine Degli Psicologi Della Campania, 1(1), 10–53240.
Federico, G., Ferrante, D., Marcatto, F., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2021a). How the fear of COVID-19 changed the way we look at human faces. PeerJ, 9, e11380.
Federico, G., Osiurak, F., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2021b). Hazardous tools: the emergence of reasoning in human tool use. Psychological Research, 85, 3108–3118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01466-2.
Federico, G., Osiurak, F., Reynaud, E., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2021c). Semantic congruency effects of prime words on tool visual exploration. Brain and Cognition, 152, 105758.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA, 1(2), 67–82.
Goldenberg, G., & Spatt, J. (2009). The neural basis of tool use. Brain, 132(6), 1645–1655.
Gomez, M. A., Skiba, R. M., & Snow, J. C. (2018). Graspable objects grab attention more than images do. Psychological Science, 29(2), 206–218.
Grezes, J., & Decety, J. (2002). Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a Neuroimaging Study. Neuropsychologia, 40(2), 212–222.
Handy, T. C., Grafton, S. T., Shroff, N. M., Ketay, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience, 6(4), 421–427.
Horst, J. S., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The Novel Object and Unusual Name (NOUN) Database: A collection of novel images for use in experimental research. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1393–1409.
Humphreys, G. W., Kumar, S., Yoon, E. Y., Wulff, M., Roberts, K. L., & Riddoch, M. J. (2013). Attending to the possibilities of action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences, 368(1628), 20130059.
Humphreys, G. F., Lambon Ralph, M. A. L., & Simons, J. S. (2021). A unifying account of angular gyrus contributions to episodic and semantic cognition. Trends in Neurosciences., 44, 452–463.
Ishibashi, R., Pobric, G., Saito, S., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2016). The neural network for tool-related cognition: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of 70 neuroimaging contrasts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3–4), 241–256.
Koechlin, E., & Summerfield, C. (2007). An information theoretical approach to prefrontal executive function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 229–235.
Lambon Ralph, M. A., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42–55.
Lesourd, M., Servant, M., Baumard, J., Reynaud, E., Ecochard, C., Medjaoui, F. T., Bartolo, A., & Osiurak, F. (2021). Semantic and action tool knowledge in the brain: identifying common and distinct networks. Neuropsychologia, 159, 107918.
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.
Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2007). Programming tool-use actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(3), 692.
Masson, M. E., Bub, D. N., & Breuer, A. T. (2011). Priming of reach and grasp actions by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1470.
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46(3), 774–785.
Mirman, D. (2014). Growth curve analysis: A hands-on tutorial on using multilevel regression to analyze time course data. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 36, No. 36).
Myachykov, A., Ellis, R., Cangelosi, A., & Fischer, M. H. (2013). Visual and linguistic cues to graspable objects. Experimental Brain Research, 229(4), 545–559.
Naish, K. R., Reader, A. T., Houston-Price, C., Bremner, A. J., & Holmes, N. P. (2013). To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences. Experimental Brain Research, 225(2), 261–275.
Natraj, N., Pella, Y. M., Borghi, A. M., & Wheaton, L. A. (2015). The visual encoding of tool–object affordances. Neuroscience, 310, 512–527.
Nicholson, T., Roser, M., & Bach, P. (2017). Understanding the goals of everyday instrumental actions is primarily linked to object, not motor-kinematic, information: Evidence from fMRI. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169700.
Osiurak, F., & Badets, A. (2014). Pliers, not fingers: Tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm. Cognition, 130(1), 66–73.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
Osiurak, F., & Federico, G. (2021). Four ways of (mis-) conceiving embodiment in tool use. Synthese, 199, 3853–3879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02960-1.
Osiurak, F., Federico, G., Brandimonte, M. A., Reynaud, E., & Lesourd, M. (2020). On the temporal dynamics of tool use. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.579378.
Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y., & Badets, A. (2017). What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 403–417.
Papoutsaki, A., Sangkloy, P., Laskey, J., Daskalova, N., Huang, J., & Hays, J. (2016). WebGazer: Scalable webcam eye tracking using user interactions. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence-IJCAI 2016.
Pupíková, M., Šimko, P., Gajdoš, M., & Rektorová, I. (2021). Modulation of working memory and resting-state fMRI by tDCS of the right frontoparietal network. Neural Plasticity. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5594305
Reynaud, E., Lesourd, M., Navarro, J., & Osiurak, F. (2016). On the neurocognitive origins of human tool use: A critical review of neuroimaging data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 64, 421–437.
Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Edwards, S., Baker, T., & Willson, K. (2003). Seeing the action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6(1), 82–89.
Rizzolatti, G., & Matelli, M. (2003). Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: Anatomy and functions. Experimental Brain Research, 153(2), 146–157.
Roberts, K. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2010). Action relationships concatenate representations of separate objects in the ventral visual system. NeuroImage, 52(4), 1541–1548.
Rothkegel, L. O., Trukenbrod, H. A., Schütt, H. H., Wichmann, F. A., & Engbert, R. (2017). Temporal evolution of the central fixation bias in scene viewing. Journal of Vision, 17(13), 3–3.
Semmelmann, K., & Weigelt, S. (2018). Online webcam-based eye tracking in cognitive science: A first look. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 451–465.
Shapiro, L. (2019). Embodied cognition. Routledge.
Tamaki, Y., Nobusako, S., Takamura, Y., Miyawaki, Y., Terada, M., & Morioka, S. (2020). Effects of tool novelty and action demands on gaze searching during tool observation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3060.
Thill, S., Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., Ziemke, T., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 491–521.
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(3), 830.
Van Der Linden, L., Mathôt, S., & Vitu, F. (2015). The role of object affordances and center of gravity in eye movements toward isolated daily-life objects. Journal of Vision, 15(5), 8–8.
Van Elk, M., Van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Conceptual knowledge for understanding other’s actions is organized primarily around action goals. Experimental Brain Research, 189(1), 99–107.
Wurm, M. F., & Caramazza, A. (2019). Distinct roles of temporal and frontoparietal cortex in representing actions across vision and language. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Federico, G., Osiurak, F., Brandimonte, M.A. et al. The visual encoding of graspable unfamiliar objects. Psychological Research 87, 452–461 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01673-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01673-z