Skip to main content

Visual context modulates potentiation of grasp types during semantic object categorization

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review volume 21, pages 645–651 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Substantial evidence suggests that conceptual processing of manipulable objects is associated with potentiation of action. Such data have been viewed as evidence that objects are recognized via access to action features. Many objects, however, are associated with multiple actions. For example, a kitchen timer may be clenched with a power grip to move it but pinched with a precision grip to use it. The present study tested the hypothesis that action evocation during conceptual object processing is responsive to the visual scene in which objects are presented. Twenty-five healthy adults were asked to categorize object pictures presented in different naturalistic visual contexts that evoke either move- or use-related actions. Categorization judgments (natural vs. artifact) were performed by executing a move- or use-related action (clench vs. pinch) on a response device, and response times were assessed as a function of contextual congruence. Although the actions performed were irrelevant to the categorization judgment, responses were significantly faster when actions were compatible with the visual context. This compatibility effect was largely driven by faster pinch responses when objects were presented in use-compatible, as compared with move-compatible, contexts. The present study is the first to highlight the influence of visual scene on stimulus–response compatibility effects during semantic object processing. These data support the hypothesis that action evocation during conceptual object processing is biased toward context-relevant actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Participants were always asked to respond with their left hand while their right arm was immobilized for future comparison with left-hemisphere stroke patients. Left-hemisphere stroke patients frequently have reduced right-arm mobility.

  2. Our analyses focused on movement initiation times, since object action-related features have been shown to affect grasp planning prior to movement execution (e.g., Bub et al., 2008; Girardi et al., 2010; Jax & Buxbaum, 2010). Nonetheless, note that we did not observe any effect of the variables of interest on transport times (all ps > .25).

References

  • Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). NJ: Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  • Apel JK, Cangelosi A, Ellis R, Goslin J, Fischer MH. (2012) Object affordance influences instruction span. Experimental Brain Research, 223(2), 199–206.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–45.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13(4), 370–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., Flumini, A., Natraj, N., & Wheaton, L. A. (2012). One hand, two objects: emergence of affordance in contexts. Brain and Cognition, 80(1), 64–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Buxbaum, L. J., Bylsma, L. M., & Jax, S. a. (2009). Toward an integrated account of object and action selection: a computational analysis and empirical findings from reaching-to-grasp and tool-use. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 671–83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Cree, G. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106(1), 27–58.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buxbaum, L. J., & Kalénine, S. (2010). Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 201–18.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caligiore, D., Borghi, A.M., Parisi, D., Ellis, R., Cangelosi, A., Baldassarre, G. (2013). How affordances associated with a distractor object affect compatibility effects: A study with the computational model TRoPICALS. Psychological Research, 77(1), 7–19.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambon, V., Domenech, P., Pacherie, E., Koechlin, E., Baraduc, P., & Farrer, C. (2011). What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding. PloS one, 6(2), e17133.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Scorolli, C., & Borghi, A. M. (2011). When objects are close to me: affordances in the peripersonal space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 302–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craighero, L., Bello, A., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia, 40(5), 492–502.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1673–92.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrsson, H. H., Fagergren, A., Forssberg, H. (2001). Differential fronto-parietal activation depending on force used in a precision grip task: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85(6), 2613–2623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 451–471.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis R, Tucker M, Symes E, Vainio L. (2007). Does selecting one visual object from several require inhibition of the actions associated with nonselected objects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 33(3), 670–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., Swabey, D., Bridgeman, J., May, B., Tucker, M., & Hyne, A. (2013). Bodies and other visual objects: the dialectics of reaching toward objects. Psychological Research, 77(1), 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–98.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girardi, G., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Context effects on the processing of action-relevant object features. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 330–40.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goslin, J., Dixon, T., Fischer, M. H., Cangelosi, A., & Ellis, R. (2012). Electrophysiological examination of embodiment in vision and action. Psychological Science, 23(2), 152–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronau, N., Neta, M., & Bar, M. (2008). Integrated contextual representation for objects’ identities and their locations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 371–88.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannus, A., Cornelissen, F. W., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2005). Selection-for-action in visual search. Acta Psychologica, 118(1–2), 171–91.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jax, S. a, & Buxbaum, L. J. (2010). Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition, 115(2), 350–5.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jax, S. A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2013). Response interference between functional and structural object-related actions is increased in patients with ideomotor apraxia. Journal of Neuropsychology, 7(1), 12–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalénine, S., Mirman, D., Middleton, E. L., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2012). Temporal dynamics of activation of thematic and functional knowledge during conceptual processing of manipulable artifacts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1274–95.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., Middleton, E., Mirman, D., Kalénine, S., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2013). Incidental and context-responsive activation of structure- and function-based action features during object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 257–70.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudrik, L., Lamy, D., & Deouell, L. Y. (2010). ERP evidence for context congruity effects during simultaneous object-scene processing. Neuropsychologia, 48(2), 507–17.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myung, J., Blumstein, S. E., Yee, E., Sedivy, J. C., Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2010). Impaired access to manipulation features in Apraxia: evidence from eyetracking and semantic judgment tasks. Brain and Language, 112(2), 101–12.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavese, A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2002). Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Visual Cognition, 9(4), 559–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2010). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: the effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 63(11), 2190–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. F., Brecher, A. R., Whyte, J., & Klein, M. G. (2005). A patient registry for cognitive rehabilitation research: a strategy for balancing patients’ privacy rights with researchers’ need for access. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(9), 1807–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, K., & Paré, M. (2011). Neural basis of feature-based contextual effects on visual search behavior. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 91.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P., Howard, L. A., & Jackson, S. R. (1997). Selective reaching to grasp: Evidence for distractor effects. Visual Cognition, 4, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 493–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 830–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vainio L, Ellis R, Tucker M, Symes E (2006). Manual Asymmetries In Visually Primed Grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 173(3) 395–406.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wurm, M. F., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schubotz, R. I. (2012). The context-object-manipulation triad: cross talk during action perception revealed by fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(7), 1548–59.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, E. Y., Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2010). The paired-object affordance effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 812–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Rob Ellis and Mike Tucker for providing us with the response apparatus. This research was supported by NIH RO1-NS065049 and James S. McDonnell Foundation #220020190 grant awards to Laurel Buxbaum.

Disclosure

The authors report no competing interests.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, PA, USA

    Solène Kalénine, Allison D. Shapiro & Laurel J. Buxbaum

  2. Lille, France

    Solène Kalénine

  3. University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Andrea Flumini & Anna M. Borghi

  4. ISTC-CNR, Rome, Italy

    Anna M. Borghi

  5. Lille Nord de France University, Domaine universitaire du Pont de Bois, BP 149-59653, Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex, Lille, France

    Solène Kalénine

Authors
  1. Solène Kalénine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allison D. Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Flumini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna M. Borghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laurel J. Buxbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Solène Kalénine.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 136 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kalénine, S., Shapiro, A.D., Flumini, A. et al. Visual context modulates potentiation of grasp types during semantic object categorization. Psychon Bull Rev 21, 645–651 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0536-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0536-7

Keywords

  • Stimulus-response compatibility
  • Concepts and categories
  • Visual selective attention
  • Embodied cognition