Abstract
Introduction. The study is aimed at studying the role of affordances in the representation of an object and the influence of motor programs on the process of visual search within the framework of the skipping search continuation paradigm (SPPP). A hypothesis was put forward about the occurrence of the effect of compatibility/congruence in the process of searching for real objects among distractors by running motor programs. Methods. The study involved 60 people from 18 to 30 years old, with normal or corrected vision, without disorders of the musculoskeletal system. The subjects had to search for target stimuli among the distractors, simultaneously performing a movement with a non-dominant hand, which could be congruent, not congruent, partially congruent to the target given by the word.
Results. As a result of data analysis, there were no significant differences in accuracy and reaction time depending on the congruence of movement towards the search object in both groups. However, the effect of PPPP was observed in all groups, regardless of the congruence of movement towards the object. Discussion of the results. Since previous studies used the task of naming or categorization rather than visual search, a possible explanation for the results may be the following factors: the movement was performed by a non-dominant hand, the target stimulus was given by a word, irrelevant programs were launched, it was impossible to form an affordance situation due to the perception of objects with different from the target motor programs. Conclusion _ The study outlines the boundary of the position on the inclusion of functional knowledge in the representation of an object and the influence of the compatibility effect on the process of visual search. The launch of motor programs does not necessarily lead to a significant impact on the process of finding the target stimulus among distractors - there is a compatibility effect. Achieving a state of affordance is probably the key factor for the emergence of such an influence.
References
Adamo, S. H., Cox, P. H., Kravitz, D. J., & Mitroff, S. R. (2019). How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search miss errors. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(8), 2648–2657. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13414-019-01802-8/TABLES/1
Adamo, S. H., Gereke, B. J., Shomstein, S., & Schmidt, J. (2021). From “satisfaction of search” to “subsequent search misses”: a review of multiple-target search errors across radiology and cognitive science. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/S41235-021-00318-W/FIGURES/2
Ambrosini, E., & Costantini, M. (2016). Body posture differentially impacts on visual attention towards tool, graspable, and non-graspable objects. Journal of Experimental psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/XHP0000330
Anderson, J. R. (2013). The Architecture of Cognition. The Architecture of Cognition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315799438
Ariga, A., Yamada, Y., & Yamani, Y. (2016). Early Visual Perception Potentiated by Object Affordances: Evidence From a Temporal Order Judgment Task. i-Perception, 7(5), 2041669516666550. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516666550
Blewett, C., & Hugo, W. (2016). Actant affordances: a brief history of affordance theory and a Latourian extension for education technology research. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL), 4(1). https://doi.org/10.14426/cristal.v4i1.50
Borghi, A. M., Bonfiglioli, C., Lugli, L., Ricciardelli, P., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2007). Are visual stimuli sufficient to evoke motor information?: Studies with hand primes. Neuroscience Letters, 411(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEULET.2006.10.003
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(38), 14325–14329. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.0803390105
Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Lin, T. (2013). Features of planned hand actions influence identification of graspable objects. Psychological science, 24(7), 1269–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472909
Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161934
Federico, G., & Brandimonte, M. A. (2019). Tool and object affordances: An ecological eye-tracking study. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103582. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDC.2019.103582
Fernandino, L., & Iacoboni, M. (2010). Are cortical motor maps based on body parts or coordinated actions? Implications for embodied semantics. Brain and Language, 112(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDL.2009.02.003
Grafton, S. T. (2009). Embodied Cognition and the Simulation of Action to Understand Others. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04425.x
Iani, C., Ferraro, L., Maiorana, N. V., Gallese, V., & Rubichi, S. (2019). Do already grasped objects activate motor affordances? Psychological Research, 83(7), 1363–1374. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00426-018-1004-9/TABLES/3
Kostov, K., & Janyan, A. (2015). Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects. Cognitive Processing, 16(1), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10339-015-0708-7/FIGURES/2
Mitroff, S. R., Biggs, A. T., & Cain, M. S. (2015). Multiple-Target Visual Search Errors: Overview and Implications for Airport Security. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215601111, 2(1), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215601111
Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y., & Badets, A. (2017). What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2017.04.014
Popp, M., Trumpp, N. M., Sim, E. J., & Kiefer, M. (2019). Brain Activation During Conceptual Processing of Action and Sound Verbs. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 236. https://doi.org/10.5709/ACP-0272-4
Pozzi, G., Pigni, F., & Vitari, C. (2014). Affordance Theory in the IS Discipline: a Review and Synthesis of the Literature. AMCIS. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2014/ResearchMethods
Rowe, P. J., Haenschel, C., Kosilo, M., & Yarrow, K. (2017). Objects rapidly prime the motor system when located near the dominant hand. Brain and Cognition, 113, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BANDC.2016.11.005
Rubtsova, O., & Gorbunova, E. S. (2021). The effect of categorical superiority in subsequent search misses. Acta Psychologica, 219, 103375. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2021.103375
Triberti, S., Repetto, C., Costantini, M., Riva, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2016). Press to grasp: how action dynamics shape object categorization. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4446-y
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), 830–846. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2010). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13506280042000144, 8(6), 769–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280042000144
Vainio, L., & Ellis, R. (2020). Action inhibition and affordances associated with a non-target object: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUBIOREV.2020.02.029
Vainio, L., Ala-Salomäki, H., Huovilainen, T., Nikkinen, H., Salo, M., Väliaho, J., & Paavilainen, P. (2014). Mug handle affordance and automatic response inhibition: Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. Sage, 67(9), 1697–1719. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.868007
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(2), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2008.03.007
Wolf, A., Miehling, J., & Wartzack, S. (2020). Elementary affordances: A study on physical user-product interactions. Procedia CIRP, 91, 621–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCIR.2020.02.220
Yamani, Y., Ariga, A., & Yamada, Y. (2016). Object affordances potentiate responses but do not guide attentional prioritization. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 9(JAN2016), 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNINT.2015.00074/BIBTEX
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 Anufrieva A. A., Gorbunova E. S.