Action-related objects influence the distribution of Visuospatial attention

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 64, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 669-688

  Roberts, Katherine L ^a   Humphreys, Glyn W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Action; Affordance; Attention; Cueing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79953682523     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2010.520086     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Creem-Regehr, S. H., Dilda, V., Vicchrilli, A. E., Federer, F., & Lee, J. N. (2007). The influence of complex action knowledge on representations of novel graspable objects: Evidence from functionalmagnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the Internationa lNeuropsychological Society, 13, 1009-1020.
2. Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6, 509-540.
3. Fischer, M. H., Prinz, J., & Lotz, K. (2008). Graspcueing shows obligatory attention to action goals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,61, 860-868.
4. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach tovisual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Gilchrist, D., Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (1996). Grouping and extinction: Evidence for low-level modulation of visual selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 1223-1249.
6. Green, C., & Hummel, J. E. (2006). Familiar interacting object pairs are perceptually grouped. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1107-1119.
7. Gronau, N., Neta, M., & Bar, M. (2008). Integrated contextual representations for objects' identities and their locations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 371-388.
8. Handy, T. C., Grafton, S. T., Shroff, N. M., Ketay, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Graspable objects grabattention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 421-427.
9. Ho, C., & Spence, C. (2006). Verbal interface design: Do verbal directional cues automatically orient visual spatial attention? Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 733-748.
10. Humphreys, G. W., Yoon, E. Y., Kumar, S., Lestou, V., Kitadono, K., Roberts, K. L., et al. (2010). Theinteraction of attention and action: From seeing action to acting on perception. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 185-206.
11. Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138-147.
12. Miller, J. (1988). A warning about median reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 539-543.
13. Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2010). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: The effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17470218.2010.486903
14. Petit, L. S., Pegna, A. J., Harris, I. M., & Michel, C. M. (2006). Automatic motor cortex activation for natural as compared to awkward grips of a manipulable object. Experimental Brain Research, 168, 120-130.
15. Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R. (2002). S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9, 540-558.
16. Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446-461.
18. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G.W., Edwards, S., Baker, T., & Willson, K. (2003). Seeing the action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 82-89.
19. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Hickman, M., Clift, J., Daly, A., & Colin, J. (2006). I can see what you are doing: Action familiarity and affordance promote recovery from extinction. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 583-605.
20. Ristic, J., & Kingstone, A. (2006). Attention to arrows: Pointing to a new direction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1921-1930.
21. Roberts, K. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2010). The one that does leads: Action relations influence the perceived temporal order of graspable objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 776-780.
22. Shore, D. I., Spence, C., & Klein, R. M. (2001). Visual prior entry. Psychological Science, 12, 205-212.
23. Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 314-318.
24. 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.
25. Võ, M. L. -H., & Henderson, J. M. (2009). Does gravity matter? Effects of semantic and syntactic inconsistencies on the allocation of attention during scene perception. Journal of Vision, 9(3, Article 24), 1-15.
26. Weisberg, J., van Turennout, M., & Martin, A. (2007). A neural system for learning about object function. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 513-521.