Cargando…
Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms
Stimulus position is coded even if it is task-irrelevant, leading to faster response times when the stimulus and the response locations are compatible (spatial Stimulus–Response Compatibility–spatial SRC). Faster responses are also found when the handle of a visual object and the response hand are l...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435042/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26042018 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00283 |
_version_ | 1782371840513015808 |
---|---|
author | Ambrosecchia, Marianna Marino, Barbara F. M. Gawryszewski, Luiz G. Riggio, Lucia |
author_facet | Ambrosecchia, Marianna Marino, Barbara F. M. Gawryszewski, Luiz G. Riggio, Lucia |
author_sort | Ambrosecchia, Marianna |
collection | PubMed |
description | Stimulus position is coded even if it is task-irrelevant, leading to faster response times when the stimulus and the response locations are compatible (spatial Stimulus–Response Compatibility–spatial SRC). Faster responses are also found when the handle of a visual object and the response hand are located on the same side; this is known as affordance effect (AE). Two contrasting accounts for AE have been classically proposed. One is focused on the recruitment of appropriate grasping actions on the object handle, and the other on the asymmetry in the object shape, which in turn would cause a handle-hand correspondence effect (CE). In order to disentangle these two accounts, we investigated the possible transfer of practice in a spatial SRC task executed with a S–R incompatible mapping to a subsequent affordance task in which objects with either their intact handle or a broken one were used. The idea was that using objects with broken handles should prevent the recruitment of motor information relative to object grasping, whereas practice transfer should prevent object asymmetry in driving handle-hand CE. A total of three experiments were carried out. In Experiment 1 participants underwent an affordance task in which common graspable objects with their intact or broken handle were used. In Experiments 2 and 3, the affordance task was preceded by a spatial SRC task in which an incompatible S–R mapping was used. Inter-task delays of 5 or 30 min were employed to assess the duration of transfer effect. In Experiment 2 objects with their intact handle were presented, whereas in Experiment 3 the same objects had their handle broken. Although objects with intact and broken handles elicited a handle-hand CE in Experiment 1, practice transfer from an incompatible spatial SRC to the affordance task was found in Experiment 3 (broken-handle objects), but not in Experiment 2 (intact-handle objects). Overall, this pattern of results indicate that both object asymmetry and the activation of motor information contribute to the generation of the handle-hand CE effect, and that the handle AE cannot be reduced to a SRC effect. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4435042 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44350422015-06-03 Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms Ambrosecchia, Marianna Marino, Barbara F. M. Gawryszewski, Luiz G. Riggio, Lucia Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Stimulus position is coded even if it is task-irrelevant, leading to faster response times when the stimulus and the response locations are compatible (spatial Stimulus–Response Compatibility–spatial SRC). Faster responses are also found when the handle of a visual object and the response hand are located on the same side; this is known as affordance effect (AE). Two contrasting accounts for AE have been classically proposed. One is focused on the recruitment of appropriate grasping actions on the object handle, and the other on the asymmetry in the object shape, which in turn would cause a handle-hand correspondence effect (CE). In order to disentangle these two accounts, we investigated the possible transfer of practice in a spatial SRC task executed with a S–R incompatible mapping to a subsequent affordance task in which objects with either their intact handle or a broken one were used. The idea was that using objects with broken handles should prevent the recruitment of motor information relative to object grasping, whereas practice transfer should prevent object asymmetry in driving handle-hand CE. A total of three experiments were carried out. In Experiment 1 participants underwent an affordance task in which common graspable objects with their intact or broken handle were used. In Experiments 2 and 3, the affordance task was preceded by a spatial SRC task in which an incompatible S–R mapping was used. Inter-task delays of 5 or 30 min were employed to assess the duration of transfer effect. In Experiment 2 objects with their intact handle were presented, whereas in Experiment 3 the same objects had their handle broken. Although objects with intact and broken handles elicited a handle-hand CE in Experiment 1, practice transfer from an incompatible spatial SRC to the affordance task was found in Experiment 3 (broken-handle objects), but not in Experiment 2 (intact-handle objects). Overall, this pattern of results indicate that both object asymmetry and the activation of motor information contribute to the generation of the handle-hand CE effect, and that the handle AE cannot be reduced to a SRC effect. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4435042/ /pubmed/26042018 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00283 Text en Copyright © 2015 Ambrosecchia, Marino, Gawryszewski and Riggio. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Ambrosecchia, Marianna Marino, Barbara F. M. Gawryszewski, Luiz G. Riggio, Lucia Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms |
title | Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms |
title_full | Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms |
title_fullStr | Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms |
title_full_unstemmed | Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms |
title_short | Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms |
title_sort | spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435042/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26042018 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00283 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ambrosecchiamarianna spatialstimulusresponsecompatibilityandaffordanceeffectsarenotruledbythesamemechanisms AT marinobarbarafm spatialstimulusresponsecompatibilityandaffordanceeffectsarenotruledbythesamemechanisms AT gawryszewskiluizg spatialstimulusresponsecompatibilityandaffordanceeffectsarenotruledbythesamemechanisms AT riggiolucia spatialstimulusresponsecompatibilityandaffordanceeffectsarenotruledbythesamemechanisms |