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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ambrosecchia, Marianna, Marino, Barbara F. M., Gawryszewski, Luiz G., Riggio, Lucia
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