Dissociating object-based and space-based affordances

Visual Cognition

Volumn 12, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 1337-1361

  Symes, Ed ^a   Ellis, Rob ^a   Tucker, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CODING; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACILITATION; FOOT; HAND; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; ORIENTATION; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 27744497179     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506280444000445     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Allport, A. (1993). Attention and control: Have we been asking the wrong questions? In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 183-219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Anderson, S. J., Yamagishi, N., & Karavia, V. (2002). Attentional processes link perception and action. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 269, 1225-1232.
3. Behrmann, M., & Tipper, S. P. (1999), Attention accesses multiple reference frames: Evidence from visual neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(1), 83-101.
4. Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13(4), 370-374.
5. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Cohen, Y. E., & Anderson, R. A. (2002). A common reference frame for movement plans in the posterior parietal cortex. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 3, 553- 562.
7. Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1673-1692.
8. Deubel, H., Schneider, W. X., & Paprotta, I. (1998). Selective dorsal and ventral processing: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Visual Cognition, 5(1-2), 81-107.
9. Egly, R., Driver, J., & Rafal, R. D. (1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 123(2), 161-177.
10. Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of actions by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 451-471.
11. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Gilchrist, I. D., Heywood, C. A., & Findlay, J. M. (2003). Visual sensitivity in search tasks depends on the response requirement. Spatial Vision, 16(3-4), 277-293.
13. Grèzes, J., & Decety, J. (2002). Does visual perception of objects afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 40(2), 212-222.
14. Grèzes, J., Tucker, M., Armony, J., Ellis, R., & Passingham, R.E. (2003). Objects automatically potentiate action: An fMR1 study of implicit processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17(12), 2735-2740.
15. Handy, T. C., Grafton, S. T., Shroff, N. M., Ketay, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience, 6(4), 421-427.
16. Hasbroucq, T., & Guiard, Y. (1991). Stimulus response compatibility and the Simon effect: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(1), 246-266.
17. Hecht, H., Vogt, S., & Prinz, W. (2001). Motor learning enhances perceptual judgment: A case for action-perception transfer. Psychological Research, 65(1), 3-14.
18. Hommel, B. (1994a). Effects of irrelevant spatial S-R compatibility depend on stimulus complexity. Psychological Research, 56, 179-184.
19. Hommel, B. (1994b). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
20. Hommel, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: Toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 764-775.
21. Hommel, B. (2002). Responding to object files: Automatic integration of spatial information revealed by stimulus-response compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A(2), 567-580.
22. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC). Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849-937.
23. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.
24. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
25. Kornblum, S., Stevens, G. T., Whipple, A., & Requin, J. (1999). The effects of irrelevant stimuli: The time-course of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response consistency effects with Stroop-like stimuli, Simon-like tasks, and their factorial combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(3), 688-714.
26. Lamberts, K., Tavernier, G., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1992). Effects of multiple reference points in spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Acta Psychologia, 79, 115-130.
27. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2, 174-207.
28. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
29. Magen, H., & Cohen, A. (2002). Action-based and vision-based selection of input: Two sources of control. Psychological Research, 66(4), 247-259.
30. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1989). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library.
31. Michaels, C. F. (1988). S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 231-240.
32. Michaels, C. F. (1993). Destination compatibility, affordances, and coding rules: A reply to Proctor, van Zandt, Lu, and Weeks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(5), 1121-1127.
33. Michaels, C. F., & Stins, J. F. (1997). An ecological approach to stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 333-360). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
34. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 861-872.
35. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1989). Splitting visual space with attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 164-169.
36. Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56(3), 144-150.
37. O'Regan, J. K., & Nöe, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24(5), 939-1031.
38. Pavese, A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2002). Action matters: The role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Visual Cognition, 9(4-5), 559-590.
39. Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R. (2002). S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9(4-5), 540-558.
40. Riddoch, J. M., Humphreys, G. W., & Edwards, M. G. (2000). Visual affordances and object selection. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive performance (pp. 603-625). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltà, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favour of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31-40.
42. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174-176.
43. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect ofan irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300-304.
44. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
45. Tipper, S. P., Lortie, C., & Baylis, G. C. (1992). Selective reaching: Evidence for action-centered attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 891-905.
46. 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(3), 830-846.
47. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769-800.
48. Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81-90.
49. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
50. Vecera, S. P., & Farah, M. J. (1994). Does visual attention select objects or locations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 146-160.
51. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.
52. Wohlschläger, A. (2000). Visual motion priming by invisible actions. Vision Research, 40, 925-930.
53. Wohlschläger, A. (2001). Mental object rotation and the planning of hand movements. Perception and Psychophysics, 63(4), 709-718.