Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:41:48.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of object similarity in the production and identification of actions associated with objects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2007

GENEVIÈVE DESMARAIS ,
MARIA CRISTINA PENSA ,
MIKE J. DIXON  and
ERIC A. ROY
GENEVIÈVE DESMARAIS
Affiliation:
Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo (Ontario), Canada
MARIA CRISTINA PENSA
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo (Ontario), Canada
MIKE J. DIXON
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo (Ontario), Canada
ERIC A. ROY
Affiliation:
Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo (Ontario), Canada Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo (Ontario), Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Past research suggests that the similarity between the objects associated with actions impacts visual action identification and action production. Indeed, people often confuse actions that are visually similar, as well as actions that are associated with visually similar objects. However, because the action errors often involve actions that are visually similar and are associated with visually similar objects, it is difficult to disambiguate between the influences of object similarity and action similarity. In our experiments, healthy participants were asked to learn to associate nonword names and actions with novel objects. Participants were first shown each object and its action and were then asked to visually identify each object. In Experiment 1, participants were then asked to produce the action associated with each object, and in Experiment 2, they were asked to visually identify the action associated with each object. Actions were confused more often when they were associated with similar objects than when they were associated with dissimilar objects. Furthermore, following an object naming error, participants were more likely to produce the action associated with the erroneous name than any other erroneous action. The results suggest that the visual characteristics of the objects influenced action production and action identification. (JINS, 2007, 13, 1021–1034.)

Keywords

GesturesPsychomotor performanceMotor activityVisual perceptionVisual pattern recognitionMemory
Type
SYMPOSIA
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 13 , Issue 6 , November 2007 , pp. 1021 - 1034
Copyright
© 2007 The International Neuropsychological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Buxbaum, L.J., Schwartz, M.F., & Carew, T.G. (1997). The role of semantic memory in object use. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 219–254.Google Scholar
Buxbaum, L.J., Schwartz, M.F., Coslett, H.B., & Carew, T.G. (1995). Naturalistic action and praxis in callosal apraxia. Neurocase, 1, 3–17.Google Scholar
Desmarais, G. & Dixon, M.J. (2005). Understanding the structural determinants of object confusion in memory: An assessment of psychophysical approaches to estimating visual similarity. Perception and Psychophysics, 67, 980–996.Google Scholar
Desmarais, G., Dixon, M.J., & Roy, E.A., (in press). A role for action knowledge in visual object identification. Memory and Cognition.
Desmarais, G., Dixon, M.J., & Roy, E.A. (2005). Looking at, Holding, and Interacting with Objects: The Richness of our Experiences Influences the Quality of Object Representations in Memory as Indexed by Naming Performance. New York: Cognitive Neuroscience Society.
Dixon, M.J., Bub, D.N., & Arguin, M. (1997). The interaction of object form and object meaning in the identification performance of a patient with category-specific visual agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 1085–1130.Google Scholar
Duffy, R.J. & Duffy, J.R. (1990). The relationship between pantomime expression and recognition in aphasia: The search for causes. In G.R. Hammond (Ed.), Cerebral Control of Speech and Limb Movements (pp. 417–449). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Goodale, M.A. & Milner, A.D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15, 20–25.Google Scholar
Goodale, M.A., Milner, A.D., Jakobson, L.S., and Carey, D.P. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349, 154–156.Google Scholar
Harman, K.L., Humphrey, G.K., & Goodale, M.A. (1999). Active manual control of object views facilitates visual recognition. Current Biology, 9, 1315–1318.Google Scholar
Heath, M., Roy, E.A., Black, S.E., & Westwood, D.A. (2001). Intransitive limb gestures and apraxia following unilateral stroke. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 23, 628–642.Google Scholar
James, K.H., Humphrey, G.K., & Goodale, M.A. (2001). Manipulating and recognizing virtual objects: Where the action is. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 111–120.Google Scholar
James, K.H., Humphrey, G.K., Vilis, T., Corrie, B., Baddour, R., & Goodale, M.A. (2002). “Active” and “passive” learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 383–390.Google Scholar
Rothi, L.J.G. & Heilman, K.M. (1997). Apraxia: The neuropsychology of action. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Roy, E.A. (1996). Hand preference, manual asymmetries, and limb apraxia. In D.E. Elliot & E.A. Roy (Eds.), Manual Asymmetries in Motor Performance (pp. 215–236). New York: CRC Press.
Roy, E.A., Heath, M., Westwood, D., Schweizer, T.A., Dixon, M.J., Black, S.E., Kalbfleisch, L., Barbour, K., & Square, P.A. (2000). Task demands and limb apraxia in stroke. Brain and Cognition, 44, 253–279.Google Scholar
Rumiati, R.I. & Humphreys, G.W. (1998). Recognition by action: Dissociating visual and semantic routes to action in normal observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 631–647.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M.F., Montgomery, M.W., Fitzpatrick-DeSalme, E.J., Ochipa, C., Coslett, H.B., & Mayer, N.H. (1995). Analysis of a disorder of everyday action. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 863–892.Google Scholar
Shepard, R.N. (1987). Towards a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317–1323.Google Scholar
Ska, B. & Croisile, B. (1998). Effects of normal aging on the recognition of gestures. Brain and Cognition, 37, 136–138.Google Scholar
Stefan, K., Cohen, L.G., Duque, J., Mazzocchio, R., Celnik, P., Sawaki, L., Ungerleider, L., & Classen, J. (2006). Formation of a motor memory by action observation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 9339–9346.Google Scholar
Tranel, D., Logan, C.G., Frank, R.J., & Damasio, A.R. (1997). Explaining category-related effects in the retrieval of conceptual and lexical knowledge of concrete entities: Operationalization and analysis of factor. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1329–1339.Google Scholar
Yoon, E.Y., Heinke, D., & Humphreys, G.W. (2002). Modelling direct perceptual constraints on action selection: The Naming and Action Model (NAM). Visual Cognition, 9, 615–661.Google Scholar