Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:51:31.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Time Course of Response Activation with Dangerous Objects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2018

Liang Zhao
Liang Zhao*
Affiliation:
Baoji University of Arts and Sciences (China)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Liang Zhao. Baoji University of Arts and Sciences. School of Education. 721013 Baoji (China). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The action property of an object appears to function as an intrinsic part of its mental representation. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in cases where although the grasp response evoked by a visual object is irrelevant to a participant’s task it still appears to be encoded. This is an affordance effect. Recent findings have shown that dangerous objects can modulate the motor system by evoking aversive affordances. However, the way the time course of response activation generated by the dangerous object develops remains unclear. To investigate this process, we used a priming paradigm that varied the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between a prime and a target. Participants were asked to judge a symbol after presentation of a dangerous object. Results showed a significant congruency effect between the affordance of the ignored object and the requisite response when the SOA was 800 and 1,200 ms, (t(29) = 4.13, p < .001; t(29) = 2.56, p < .05, respectively). However, with briefer SOAs (0 and 400 ms), this congruency effect was not observed (ps > .10). Results indicate the time course of response activation with a dangerous object are relatively long-lasting.

Keywords

affordancedangerous objecttime course
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 21 , 2018 , E27
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

This study was supported by the Programs of Scientific Research Foundation for Doctor of Baoji University of Arts and Sciences (ZK2018032), Shaanxi philosophy and Social Sciences fund (2017P016), and Shaanxi Education Science “13th Five-Year” program (SGH17H273).

References

Anelli, F., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2012). Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1627–1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.09.001CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anelli, F., Ranzini, M., Nicoletti, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2013). Perceiving object dangerousness: An escape from pain? Experimental Brain Research, 228, 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3577-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egner, T., Delano, M., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. NeuroImage, 35, 940–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.061CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance. The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161934CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Neurophysiological distinction of action words in the fronto-central cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 21, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10157CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makris, S., Hadar, A. A., & Yarrow, K. (2011). Viewing objects and planning actions: On the potentiation of grasping behaviors by visual objects. Brain and Cognition, 77, 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.08.002CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0299-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelli, D. G., Burns, C. W., Farell, B., & Moore-Page, D. C. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46, 4646–4674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.023CrossRefGoogle 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
Proverbio, A. M., Adorni, R., & D’Aniello, G. E. (2011). 250ms to code for action affordance during observation of manipulable objects. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2711–2717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.05.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, I., Tipper, S. P., Fenton-Adams, W. L., & Bach, P. (2013). “Feeling” others’ painful actions: The sensorimotor integration of pain and action information. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 1982–1998. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22040CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830Google ScholarPubMed
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). Micro-affordance of grasp type in a visual categorisation task. Visual Cognition, 8, 769–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116, 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.01.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vingerhoets, G., Vandamme, K., & Vercammen, A. (2009). Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain and Cognition, 69, 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, L. (2016). The automaticity of affordance of dangerous object. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19, E74. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, L. (2017). Separate pathways for the processing of affordance of neutral and dangerous object. Current Psychology, 36, 833–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9472-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, L., Bai, Y., Ma, J., & Wang, Y. (2015). Local control mechanisms of implicit and explicit conflicts. Experimental Psychology, 62, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000281CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed