Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dissociating affordance and spatial compatibility effects using a pantomimed reaching action

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated faster reaction times in response to appropriately oriented action-inducing stimuli (affordance effect, e.g. Tucker and Ellis in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846, 1998). However, it has been argued that faster responses may be due to a spatial compatibility effect. In the current investigation, we aimed to dissociate the affordance and spatial compatibility effects. Moreover, we explored these effects beyond button-press responses by measuring detailed kinematics of the arms and hands during a naturalistic reach response. Participants were presented with images of a door handle (affording) or an abstract (non-affording) stimulus and made a pantomimed reach response with either hand depending on a colour change of the stimulus (i.e. Blue = left, Green = right). Stimuli could be aligned as spatially compatible or incompatible with the responding hand. The colour change occurred after a delay of 0, 500 or 1,000 ms. Only spatially compatible affordance stimuli facilitated reach onset compared to other stimuli and compatibility combinations, replicating previous reaction time studies. Therefore, in the absence of graspable stimuli, spatial compatibility alone was not sufficient to facilitate reach onset. There was also a larger outwards deviation of reach trajectory for spatially incompatible abstract stimuli compared to spatially compatible abstract stimuli, which waned with stimulus onset delay. However, no such affect was observed for the affording stimuli. Accordingly, later kinematics of the reaching action was influenced by the spatial compatibility of the stimulus alone. Overall, the dissociation of affordance and spatial compatibility effects suggests that these effects are driven by visuomotor priming and the inhibition of the incompatible spatial location, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson SJ, Yamagishi N, Karavia V (2002) Attentional processes link perception and action. Proc Biol Sci 269:1225–1232. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1998

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham G, Coats R, Mon-Williams M (2007) Natural prehension in trials without haptic feedback but only when calibration is allowed. Neuropsychologia 45:288–294. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.07.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bub DN, Masson ME (2010) Grasping beer mugs: on the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:341–358. doi:10.1037/a0017606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buhlmann I, Umiltà C, Wascher E (2007) Response coding and visuomotor transformation in the Simon task: the role of action goals. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:1269–1282. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis R, Tucker M (2000) Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects. Br J Psychol 91(Pt 4):451–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galpin A, Tipper SP, Dick JP, Poliakoff E (2011) Object affordance and spatial-compatibility effects in Parkinson’s disease. Cortex 47:332–341. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2010.01.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson J (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting and knowing: toward an ecological psychology. Lawrnce Erlbraum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover S (2004) Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behav Brain Sci 27:3–24 (discussion 24–78)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale MA, Jakobson LS, Keillor JM (1994) Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia 32:1159–1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grèzes J, Tucker M, Armony J, Ellis R, Passingham RE (2003) Objects automatically potentiate action: an fMRI study of implicit processing. Eur J Neurosci 17:2735–2740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hasher L, Zacks RT (1988) Working memory, comprehension and aging: a review and new view. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation. Academic Press, New York, pp 193–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasher L, Stoltzfus ER, Zacks RT, Rypma B (1991) Age and inhibition. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 17:163–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hermsdörfer J, Terlinden G, Mühlau M, Goldenberg G, Wohlschläger AM (2007) Neural representations of pantomimed and actual tool use: evidence from an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 36(Suppl 2):T109–T118. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hermsdörfer J, Li Y, Randerath J, Goldenberg G, Johannsen L (2012) Tool use without a tool: kinematic characteristics of pantomiming as compared to actual use and the effect of brain damage. Exp Brain Res 218:201–214. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3021-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel B (1994) Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychol Res 56:261–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howard LA, Tipper SP (1997) Hand deviations away from visual cues: indirect evidence for inhibition. Exp Brain Res 113:144–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iani C, Baroni G, Pellicano A, Nicoletti R (2011) On the relationship between affordance and Simon effects: are the effects really independent. J Cogn Psychol 23:121–131. doi:10.1080/20445911.2011.467251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1984) The timing of natural prehension movements. J Mot Behav 16:235–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1994a) The hand and the object: the role of posterior parietal cortex in forming motor representations. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 72:535–541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (1994b) The representing brain: neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behav Brain Sci 17:187–202. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00034026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum S, Stevens GT, Whipple A, Requin J (1999) The effects of irrelevant stimuli: 1. The time course of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response consistency effects with stroop-like stimuli, simon-like tasks, and their factorial combinations. J Exp Psychol 25:688–714

    Google Scholar 

  • Masson ME, Bub DN, Breuer AT (2011) Priming of reach and grasp actions by handled objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:1470–1484. doi:10.1037/a0023509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neyedli H, Welsh T (2012) The processes of facilitation and inhibition in a cue-target paradigm: insight from movement trajectory deviations. Acta Psychol (Amst) 139:159–165. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas Z, Mack A (2008) Potentiation of action by undetected affordant objects. Vis Cogn 16:892–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavese A, Buxbaum LJ (2002) Action matters: the role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Vis Cogn 9:559–590. doi:10.1080/13506280143000584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persad CC, Abeles N, Zacks RT, Denburg NL (2002) Inhibitory changes after age 60 and their relationship to measures of attention and memory. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 57:P223–P232. doi:10.1093/geronb/57.3.P223

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips JC, Ward R (2002) S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Vis Cogn 9:540–558. doi:10.1080/13506280143000575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poliakoff E, Galpin A, Dick J, Moore P, Tipper SP (2007) The effect of viewing graspable objects and actions in Parkinson’s disease. NeuroReport 18:483–487. doi:10.1097/WNR.0b013e32805867a1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon JR (1969) Reactions towards the source of stimulation. J Exp Psychol 81:174–176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon JR, Small AM (1969) Processing auditory information: interference from an irrelevant cue. J Appl Psychol 53:433–435

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon JR, Acosta E, Mewaldt S, Speidel C (1976) The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on choice reaction time: duration of the phenomenon and its relation to stages of processing. Percept Psychophys 19:16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symes E, Ellis R, Tucker M (2005) Dissociating object-based and space-based affordances. Vis Cogn 12:1337–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symes E, Ellis R, Tucker M (2007) Visual object affordances: object orientation. Acta Psychol (Amst) 124:238–255. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Lortie C, Baylis GC (1992) Selective reaching: evidence for action-centered attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:891–905

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper SP, Howard LA, Jackson SR (1997) Selective reaching to grasp: evidence for distractor interference effects. Vis Cogn 4:1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:493–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:830–846

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Selst M, Jolicoeur P (1994) A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Q J Exp Psychol A 47:631–650. doi:10.1080/14640749408401131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilf M, Holmes NP, Schwartz I, Makin TR (2013) Dissociating between object affordances and spatial compatibility effects using early response components. Front Psychol 4:591. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00591

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

SC was supported by the Frederick Craven Moore Award from the University of Manchester.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Carys Bannister Building, Dover Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Samuel Couth & Emma Gowen

  2. School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Ellen Poliakoff

Authors
  1. Samuel Couth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emma Gowen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ellen Poliakoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Couth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Couth, S., Gowen, E. & Poliakoff, E. Dissociating affordance and spatial compatibility effects using a pantomimed reaching action. Exp Brain Res 232, 855–864 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3798-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3798-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation