Exploring the Role of Action Consequences in the Handle-Response Compatibility Effect

Emotions in motion: affective valence can influence compatibility effects with graspable objects

Previous studies showed that affective valence (positive, negative) influences Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) effects elicited by both relevant and irrelevant spatial dimensions. We tested whether valence influences SRC effects when the irrelevant spatial dimension rather than being conveyed by the entire stimulus location is conveyed by the location of the stimulus' graspable part, i.e., the Handle-Response (H-R) compatibility effect. Participants saw objects with either a flower, a spider or nothing on their handle and categorized them as kitchen utensils or garage tools through button presses. In Experiment 1, a random presentation of valenced stimuli was used, whereas in Experiment 2 differently valenced stimuli were arranged in different blocks. Furthermore, participants in Experiment 2 could be spider-fearful or not. In Experiment 1, an H-R compatibility effect occurred for response latencies, regardless of whether stimuli presented a negative, positive or no element on their handle. In Experiment 2 the effect occurred only when a positive element was shown on the object's handle. In addition, spider-fearful individuals showed significantly slower responses when the element appearing on the object's handle had a negative valence. These results suggest that the SRC effect observed with pictures of graspable objects may be sensitive to the affective characteristics of stimuli and that approach/avoidance response tendencies may also depend on individual differences (being spider-fearful or not).

Compatibility effects with destination and origin of motion

Previous studies highlighted spatial compatibility effects other than those strictly arising from stimulus-response locations. In particular, the so-called Destination Compatibility (DC) effect refers to faster responses for dynamic (i.e., moving) stimuli the end point of which is spatially compatible with the response key. Four experiments examined whether the DC effect also occurs with static visual stimuli symbolically representing either motion destination alone (Experiment 1a), or both motion origin and destination (Experiments 1b, 2a, and 2b). Overall, our results are consistent in showing a DC effect; most importantly, the present findings reveal a predominance of the effect of destination of motion over that of origin, even when both the starting and ending positions of the stimulus are symbolically represented and participants are instructed to respond according to motion origin. This finding suggests that the DC effect is independent from other stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects.

Restricting movements of lower face leaves recognition of emotional vocalizations intact but introduces a valence positivity bias

Blocking facial mimicry can disrupt recognition of emotion stimuli. Many previous studies have focused on facial expressions, and it remains unclear whether this generalises to other types of emotional expressions. Furthermore, by emphasizing categorical recognition judgments, previous studies neglected the role of mimicry in other processing stages, including dimensional (valence and arousal) evaluations. In the study presented herein, we addressed both issues by asking participants to listen to brief non-verbal vocalizations of four emotion categories (anger, disgust, fear, happiness) and neutral sounds under two conditions. One of the conditions included blocking facial mimicry by creating constant tension on the lower face muscles, in the other condition facial muscles remained relaxed. After each stimulus presentation, participants evaluated sounds' category, valence, and arousal. Although the blocking manipulation did not influence emotion recognition, it led to higher valence ratings in a non-category-specific manner, including neutral sounds. Our findings suggest that somatosensory and motor feedback play a role in the evaluation of affect vocalizations, perhaps introducing a directional bias. This distinction between stimulus recognition, stimulus categorization, and stimulus evaluation is important for understanding what cognitive and emotional processing stages involve somatosensory and motor processes.

Does a look of fear prompt to act? The effects of gaze and face emotional expression on manipulable objects

Gaze direction is an important social cue for understanding the intentions of other people. Indeed, interacting with others requires the ability to encode their current focus of attention in order to predict their future actions. Previous studies have showed that when asked to detect or identify a target, people are faster if shown a gaze oriented toward rather than away from that target. Most importantly, there is evidence that the emotion conveyed by the face with the averted gaze matters. We further tested the interplay between gaze and face emotion in the context of manipulable objects to understand whether and to what extent other people's gaze influences our own actions toward objects. Participants judged whether a target graspable object was upright or inverted after viewing a face cue with a central or averted gaze. Importantly, the target's handle could be oriented toward the gazed-at location or the opposite side such that gaze and handle were corresponding or non-corresponding in space. Furthermore, we manipulated the expression of the cue by using neutral and fearful faces. Results showed a handle-response (H-R) compatibility effect (i.e., a facilitation when the response key is on the same side as the object's handle) only with fearful cues with a central gaze.

Practice and transfer with mappings of spoon tip and handle to keypress responses

When orientation of a horizontal spoon image varies to the left or right, instructions can map left and right keypresses to the tip or handle location. We conducted Experiment 1 to determine whether practice with an incompatible mapping of the salient tip transfers to a test session in which the relevant part and/or mapping are changed. Participants performed 80 practice trials with tip-incompatible mapping, followed by 80 test trials with tip-compatible, tip-incompatible, handle-compatible, or handle-incompatible mapping. Performance improved across 20-trial blocks in the practice session. In the test session, responses were 65 ms faster with tip-compatible than tip-incompatible mapping but 31 ms faster with handle-incompatible than handle-compatible mapping. This latter result, and verbal reports, indicate that some participants adopted a strategy of responding compatibly to the salient tip even though instructed to respond to the handle. Experiment 2 focused on whether participants with handle-incompatible mapping instructions would adopt the tip-compatible strategy spontaneously or after receiving a hint: 77% of participants reported adopting the tip-compatible strategy in Session 1, showing that prior experience responding to the tip is not necessary and 9% of participants did not report using that strategy in Session 1 but reported changing to it in Session 2 after receiving the hint. Their responses in Session 2 were slower than those who used the strategy throughout, but this difference was minimal in the last two trial blocks. Compatible mapping of the salient spoon tip to keypresses dominated performance over prior practice with incompatible tip mapping and instructions with incompatible handle mapping.