Size coding of alternative responses is sufficient to induce a potentiation effect with manipulable objects

Incompatibility Influences Cursor Placement When Pointing to Images of Cups

OBJECTIVE

As images are used within graphical user interfaces to signify menu selection, it is important to understand how image properties can influence cursor placement online.

BACKGROUND

Objects have multiple dimensions that create potential ambiguity and Stroop-like confusions for the operator if a previously habitual response conflicts with the required response.

METHODS

To examine the impact of compatibility and other contextual factors, 41 participants used a computer Mouse or touch screen to place the cursor upon images of full or empty cups that varied in size, and direction of handle.

RESULTS

Cursor placements took longer using the Mouse than touch screen. Although participants were placing the cursor on images, the size of the cup, whether it was empty or full, and the handle orientation interacted in their effects upon response duration and cursor placement. The effects of cup size reversed for empty cups or those with incompatible handles.

CONCLUSION

Context can influence cursor placement. Perceived spillability influenced precision requirements, and the cup handle can serve as target or a flanking distractor.

APPLICATION

Image content can influence screen hotspots. As performance can change with cup spillability, this bodes well for attempts to detect intent from cursor trajectories.

The size coding of responses: The size of switches and the force feedback

We aimed to understand which factors have a functional role in the size coding of responses, either the size of the switches or the force required to trigger each switch. This question is of relevance because it allows a better understanding of processes underlying action coding. In each trial, participants saw a small or large object. Depending on its colour, the participants had to press one of two switches. In the "size" condition, the response device consisted of two switches of different visual size, but both required the same amount of force. In the "force-feedback" condition, the response device consisted in two switches of identical visual size, but one switch required more force than the other. We found a compatibility effect in the "size," not in the "force-feedback" condition, supporting that the size-coding of responses would be due to the size of the switches.

Stimulus-response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size?

When the size of visual objects matches the size of the response required to perform the task, a potentiation effect has been reported, with faster responses in compatible than incompatible situations. Size compatibility effects have been taken as evidence of close perception-action interrelations. However, it is still unclear whether the effect arises from abstract coding of the size of stimulus and response or from the evocation of grasp affordances from visual objects. We aimed to disentangle the two interpretations. Two groups of 40 young adults categorised small and large objects presented in standardised size as natural or artefact objects. One group categorised manipulable objects that may be associated with small or large size properties and evoke power or precision grasp affordances. The other group categorised non-manipulable objects that may only be associated with small or large size properties. Categorisation responses were made by reaching and grasping a monotonic cylindric device with a power or precision grip in a grasping condition and with large or small touch responses in a control condition. Compatibility effects were found in both grasping and control conditions, independently of the manipulability or category of objects. Participants were faster when the size of the expected response matched the size of the object than when they mismatched, especially for power grasps or whole-hand touch responses. Overall findings support the abstract coding hypothesis and suggest that compatibility between the conceptual size of the object and the size of the hand response is sufficient to facilitate semantic categorisation judgements.

Beyond grasping: Syllables processing influences mere manual keypress

We aimed to better understand the link between vocalization and grasping. We especially test whether neurocognitive processes underlying this interaction are not grasping specific. To test this hypothesis, we used the procedure of a previous experiment, showing that silently reading the syllable KA and TI can facilitate power- and precision-grip responses, respectively. In our experiment, the participants have to silently read the syllable KA or TI but, according to the color of the syllables, have merely to press a large or small switch (we removed the grasping component of responses). Responses on the large switch were faster when the syllable KA was read compared with TI and conversely for the responses carried out on the small switch. This result supports that the influence of vocalization is not restricted to grasping responses, and, in addition, it supports an alternative, non-grasping-specific model of interactions between vocalization and grasping.

The visual size is enough to automatically induce the potentiation of grasping behaviours

Seeing objects usually grasped with a power or a precision grip (e.g., an apple vs a cherry) potentiates power- and precision-grip responses, respectively. An embodied account suggests that this effect occurs because object conceptual representations would lie on a motor simulation process. A new account, named the size-coding account, argues that this effect could be rather due to an overlapping of size codes used to represent both manipulable objects and response options. In this article, we investigate whether this potentiation effect could be merely due to a low-level visual feature that favours a size-coding of stimuli: the visual size in which objects are presented. Accordingly, we conducted two experiments in which we presented highly elementary and non-graspable stimuli (i.e., ink spots) either large or small rather than graspable objects. Our results showed that the mere visual size automatically potentiates power- and precision-grip responses that are in line with the size-coding account of the potentiation effect of grasping behaviours. Moreover, these results appeal to improve the methodological control of the size of stimuli especially when researchers try to support the embodied account.

Manipulable objects can potentiate pointing and unusual grasping besides habitual grasping behaviors

People are faster to perform a precision grip when they see a cherry (i.e., a small graspable object) than to perform a power grip, and the reverse holds true when they see an apple (i.e., a large graspable object). This potentiation effect supports that object representations could include motor components that would be simulated when a graspable object is seen. However, the nature of these motor components remains unclear. The embodied account posits that seeing an object only potentiates the most frequent actions associated with it (i.e., usual actions). In contrast, the size-coding account posits that seeing an object potentiates any actions associated to spatial codes compatible with those associated to the objects. We conducted three experiments to disentangle these two alternative accounts. We especially varied the nature of the responses while participants saw either large or small graspable objects. Our results showed a potentiation effect when participants performed the usual grasping actions (Experiment 1: power and precision grip) but also when they performed unusual grasping actions (Experiment 2: grasping between the thumb and little finger) and even when they had to perform non-grasping actions (Experiment 3: pointing actions). By supporting the size-coding account, our contribution underlines the need for a better understanding of the nature of the motor components of object representations and for using a proper control condition (i.e., pointing action) before arguing that the embodied account convincingly explains the potentiation effect of grasping behaviors.

Too much to handle? Interference from distractors with similar affordances on target selection for handled objects

The existence of handle affordances has been classically demonstrated using the Stimulus-Response Compatibility paradigm, with shorter response times when the orientation of the object handle and the response hand are compatible in comparison to incompatible. Yet the activation of handle affordances from visual objects has been investigated in very simple situations involving single stimulus and motor response. As natural perceptual scenes are usually composed of multiple objects that could activate multiple affordances, the consequence of multiple affordance activation on the perception and processing of a given object of the scene requires more investigation. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of distractor affordances on the processing of a target object in situations involving several familiar graspable objects. In two online experiments, 229 participants had to select a target object (the kitchen utensil or the tool) in a visual scene displaying a pair of objects. They performed left key presses when the target was on the left and right key presses when the target was on the right. Target handle orientation and response side could be compatible or incompatible. Critically, target and distractor objects had similar or dissimilar handle affordances, with handles oriented for left- or right-hand grasps. Results from the two experiments showed slower response times when target and distractor objects had similar handle affordances in comparison to dissimilar affordances, when participants performed right hand responses and when target orientation and response were compatible. Thus, affordance similarity between objects may interfere rather than facilitate object processing and slow down target selection. These findings are in line with models of affordance and object selection assuming automatic inhibition of distractors' affordances for appropriate object interaction.

The Postural Effect on the Memory of Manipulable Objects

The grounded cognition approach posits the involvement of sensory-motor processes in the representation of knowledge. However, the functional impact of these processes on cognition has been questioned, and some authors have explored the effect of motor interference on memory to test causally this hypothesis. In a seminal study, Dutriaux and Gyselinck (2016) showed that keeping the hands behind the back during learning decreases the memory of manipulable objects, but not the memory of nonmanipulable objects. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the mechanism behind the effect of posture in memory observed by Dutriaux and Gyselinck. The present experiment replicated the posture manipulation during learning but asked participants to keep their hands behind the back during recall. Results showed a similar detrimental effect of the hands behind the back specific to manipulable objects. This shows that the mechanism behind this effect arises from postural interference rather than from a compatibility between the posture during learning and the posture during recall and adds new evidence in favor of the sensory-motor grounding of knowledge.

The visual size of graspable objects is needed to induce the potentiation of grasping behaviors even with verbal stimuli

Merely perceiving objects usually grasped with a power or a precision grip (e.g., an apple vs. a cherry) potentiate power-grip and precision-grip responses, respectively. According to the size-coding account, this potentiation effect is due to the compatibility between size codes associated with both stimuli and responses, rather than to the simulation of motor information stored at a conceptual level (i.e., the embodied account). At the stimulus level, size-coding would occur, because objects associated with a power grip are usually presented in a larger visual size than objects associated with a precision grip. However, this explanation is challenged by results, showing that reading nouns of objects associated with power or precision grip also leads to potentiation effects, even though the visual size of the displayed object is no longer perceived. Therefore, we designed three experiments to better understand this word-based potentiation effect and to investigate whether it relies on size codes. Our results showed a word-based potentiation effect only when the object nouns were interleaved with pictures depicting the objects in their typical visual size. We discuss the contributions of these results for both the size-coding account and the embodied account of the potentiation effect of grasping behaviors.

Anticipating the magnitude of response outcomes can induce a potentiation effect for manipulable objects

Merely seeing large objects (e.g., apples) potentiates power grip whereas seeing small objects (e.g., strawberries) potentiates precision grip. According to the embodied cognition account, this potentiation effect reflects automatic access to object representation, including the grip usually associated with the object. Alternatively, this effect might be due to an overlap between magnitude codes used to code manipulable objects and magnitude codes used to code responses outcomes. In Experiment 1, participants saw objects usually grasped with a power or precision grip and had to press keys either with their forefinger or with their palm, each response generating a low or high tone (i.e., a large vs. small perceptual outcome, respectively). Tones were automatically delivered by headphones after the responses have been made in line with the ideomotor theories according to which voluntary actions are carried out due to the anticipation of their outcomes. Consistent with the magnitude-coding hypothesis, response times were shorter when the object and the anticipated response outcome were of the same magnitude than when they were not. These results were also consistent with a between-experiment analysis. In Experiments 2 and 3, we investigated to what extent removing or switching the outcomes during the experiment influence the potentiation effect. Our results support that the potentiation effect of grasping behaviours could be due to the compatibility between magnitude codes rather than to the involvement of motor representations. Our results also suggest a spontaneous use of the magnitude of response outcomes to code responses, as well as the flexibility of this coding processes when responses outcomes are altered.