Attentional orienting to graspable objects: What triggers the response?

NeuroReport

Volumn 18, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 941-944

  Handy, Todd C ^a,b   Tipper, Christine M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Event related potentials; Spatial attention; Visual attention; Visual motor interactions

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DEPTH PERCEPTION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEFT HEMISPHERE; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; VISION;

ADULT; ATTENTION; COHORT STUDIES; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 34249094453     PISSN: 09594965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3281332674     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Di Pellegrino G, Rafal R, Tipper SP. Implicitly evoked actions modulate visual selection: evidence from parietal extinction. Curr Biol 2005; 15:1469-1472.
2. Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW, Edwards S, Baker T, Willson K. Seeing the action: neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nat Neurosci 2003; 6:82-89.
3. Grafton ST, Fadiga L, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G. Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. Neuroimage 1997; 6:231-236.
4. Chao LL, Martin A. Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage 2000; 12:478-484.
5. Grèzes J, Decety J. Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia 2002; 40:212-222.
6. Handy TC, Grafton ST, Shroff NM, Ketay SB, Gazzaniga MS. Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nat Neurosci 2003; 6:421-427.
7. Bub DN, Masson MEJ, Bukach CM. Gesturing and naming: the use of functional knowledge in object identification. Psychol Sci 2003; 14:467-472.
8. Craighero L, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G, Umiltà C. Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1999; 25:1673-1692.
9. Pavese A, Buxbaum LJ. Action matters: the role of action plans and object affordances in selection for action. Vis Cognition 2002; 9:559-590.
10. Tucker M, Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1998; 24:830-846.
11. Weir PL, Weeks DJ, Welsh TN, Elliott D, Chua R, Roy EA, Lyons J. Influence of terminal action requirements on action-centered distractor effects. Exp Brain Res 2003; 149:207-213.
12. Triggs WJ, Subramanium B, Rossi F. Hand preference and transcranial magnetic stimulation asymmetry of cortical motor representations. Brain Res 1999; 835:324-329.
13. Volkmann J, Schnitzler A, Witte OW, Freund H-J. Handedness and asymmetry of hand representations in human motor cortex. J Neurophysiol 1998; 79:2149-2154.
14. Gonzalez CL, Ganel T, Goodale MA. Hemispheric specialization for the visual control of action is independent of handedness. J Neurophysiol 2006: 95:3496-3501.
15. Frey SH, Funnell MG, Gerry VE, Gazzaniga MS. A dissociation between the representation of tool-use skills and hand dominance: insights from left- and right-handed callosotomy patients. J Cogn Neurosci 2005; 17:262-272.
16. Meador KJ, Loring DW, Lee K, Hughes M, Lee G, Nichols M, Heilman KM. Cerebral lateralization: relationship of language and ideomotor praxis. Neurology 1999; 53:2028-2031.
17. Boles DB. An experimental comparison of stimulus type, display type, and input variable contributions to visual field asymmetry. Brain Cogn 1994; 24:184-197.
18. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971; 9:97-113.
19. Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart M. A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 1980; 6:174-215.
20. Mangun GR, Hillyard SA. Modulation of sensory-evoked brain potentials provide evidence for changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1991; 17:1057-1074.
21. Luck SJ. Multiple mechanisms of visual-spatial attention: recent evidence from human electrophysiology. Behav Brain Res 1995; 71:113-123.
22. Fang F, He S. Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways. Nat Neurosci 2005; 8:1380-1385.
23. Ganel T, Goodale MA. Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape. Nature 2003; 426:664-667.
24. Handy TC, Green V, Klein R, Mangun GR. Combined expectancies: ERPs reveal the early benefits of spatial attention that are obscured by reaction time measures. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2001b; 27:303-317.
25. Lewis JW, Phinney RE, Brefczynski-Lewis JA, DeYoe EA. Lefties get it 'right' when hearing tool sounds. J Cogn Neurosci 2006; 18:1314-1330.