Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:51:51.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Automaticity of Affordance of Dangerous Object

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2016

Liang Zhao
Liang Zhao*
Affiliation:
Baoji University of Arts and Sciences (China)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Liang Zhao. School of Education. Baoji University of Arts and Sciences. Baoji (China). 721000. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objects observation automatically elicits the activation of a reach-to-grasp response specifically directed to interact with the object, which is termed affordance. Murphy, van Velzen, and de Fockert (2012) found that only when an irrelevant object receives sufficient attention, it can potentiate an action. However, it remains unclear whether the dangerous object would afford an action when it receives insufficient attention. In this study, we manipulated the perceptual load in a letter identification task. Participants were required to identify a target letter with the right or left hand while ignoring a neutral or dangerous graspable object. The target letter was presented either on its own (low perceptual load), alongside five non-target letters (high load), or alongside eight non-target letters (super high load). Under the low perceptual load, for both neutral and dangerous object, responses were faster when the action afforded by the ignored object was congruent (vs. incongruent) with the current target response (t(27) = 4.44, p < .001; t(27) = 7.99, p < .001, respectively). However, during the high perceptual load, for dangerous object, responses were slower when the action afforded by the ignored object was congruent (vs. incongruent) with the current target response (t(27) = 4.97, p < .001). There was not any effect for both neutral object and dangerous object under super high perceptual load. These results suggest the affordance of dangerous object is also sensitive to the perceptual load. An irrelevant dangerous object can’t potentiate an action if it receives insufficient attention.

Keywords

dangerous objectperceptual loadselective attention
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E74
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

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

Anderson, S. J., Yamagishi, N., & Karavia, V. (2002). Attentional processes link perception and action. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 1225–1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1998 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anelli, F., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2012). Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1627–1639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.09.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., Bolzani, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2013). Keep Away from danger: Dangerous objects in dynamic and static situations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 344. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00344 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 853–861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019328 Google ScholarPubMed
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 737–749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021934 Google ScholarPubMed
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). Object-based correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface-property judgments with keypress responses: Evidence for a basis in spatial coding. Psychological Research, 77, 618–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0458-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coello, Y., Bourgeois, J., & Iachini, T. (2012). Embodied perception of reachable space: How do we manage threatening objects? Cognitive Processing, 13, 131–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0470-z CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91, 176–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00230027 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712600161934 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Murata, A., Gallese, V., Luppino, G., Kaseda, M., & Sakata, H. (2000). Selectivity for the shape, size, and orientation of objects for grasping in neurons of monkey parietal area AIP. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83, 2580–2601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, S., van Velzen, J., & de Fockert, J. W. (2012). The role of perceptual load in action affordance by ignored objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1122–1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0299-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2010). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: The effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2190–2201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.486903 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellicano, A., Lugli, L., Baroni, G., & Nicoletti, R. (2015). The Simon effect with conventional signals: A time-course analysis. Experimental Psychology, 56, 219–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pessoa, L., McKenna, M., Gutierrez, E., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2002). Neural processing of emotional faces requires attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 11458–11463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.172403899 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R. (2002). SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9, 540–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggio, L., Iani, C., Gherri, E., Benatti, F., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2008). The role of attention in the occurrence of the affordance effect. Acta Psychologica, 127, 449–458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symes, E., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2005). Dissociating object-based and space-based affordances. Visual Cognition, 12, 1337–1361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symes, E., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2007). Visual object affordances: Object orientation. Acta Psychologica, 124, 238–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.03.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 493–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193875 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 830–846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830 Google ScholarPubMed
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). Micro-affordance of grasp type in a visual categorisation task. Visual Cognition, 8, 769–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainio, L., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2007). The role of visuospatial attention in action priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wamain, Y., Gabrielli, F., & Coello, Y. (2016). EEG μ rhythm invirtual reality revealsthat motor coding of visual objects in peripersonal space is task dependent. Cortex, 74, 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar