Visual responses to action between unfamiliar object pairs modulate extinction

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 622-632

  Wulff, Melanie ^a   Humphreys, Glyn W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Action familiarity; Action relation; Affordance; Attention; Perspective; Visual extinction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EYE DOMINANCE; FEMALE; HANDEDNESS; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL DISEASE; NEUROMODULATION; SENSORIMOTOR FUNCTION; SPATIAL DISCRIMINATION; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL ADAPTATION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL EXTINCTION; VISUAL ORIENTATION;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; BRAIN DAMAGE, CHRONIC; EXTINCTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); STROKE; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84873475032     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: 18733514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Chao L.L., Martin A. Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage 2000, 12(4):478-484.
2. Chechlacz, M., Rotshtein, P., Hansen, P. C., Deb, S., Riddoch, J. M., & Humphreys, G. W. (in press). The central role of the temporo-parietal junction and the superior longitudinal fasciculus in supporting multi-item competition: evidence from lesion-symptom mapping of extinction. Cortex, Available from doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.11.008.
3. Chouinard P.A., Goodale M.A. Category-specific neural processing for naming pictures of animals and naming pictures of tools: an ALE meta-analysis. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48(2):409-418. .Available from WOS:000274371700007.
4. di Pellegrino G., Rafal R., Tipper S.P. Implicitly evoked actions modulate visual selection: evidence from parietal extinction. Current Biology 2005, 15(16):1469-1472. .Available from WOS:000231616400018.
5. Driver J., Vuilleumier P. Perceptual awareness and its loss in unilateral neglect and extinction. Cognition 2001, 79(1-2):39-88. .Available from WOS:000167587700002.
6. Gallivan J.P., McLean A., Culham J.C. Neuroimaging reveals enhanced activation in a reach-selective brain area for objects located within participants' typical hand workspaces. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49(13):3710-3721. Available from WOS:000297455900023.
7. Gibson J.J. The ecological approach to visual perception 1979, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
8. Gilchrist I.D., Humphreys G.W., Riddoch M.J. Grouping and extinction: evidence for low-level modulation of visual selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1996, 13(8):1223-1249. Available from WOS:A1996WQ72300007.
9. Handy T.C., Grafton S.T., Shroff N.M., Ketay S., Gazzaniga M.S. Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6(4):421-427. .Available from WOS:000181833100021.
10. Handy T.C., Tipper C.M. Attentional orienting to graspable objects: what triggers the response?. Neuroreport 2007, 18(9):941-944. .Available from ISI:000247042200020.
11. Humphreys G.W., Bickerton W.L., Samson D., Riddoch M.J. BCoS cognitive screen 2012, Psychology Press, London.
12. Humphreys G.W., Riddoch J. How to define an object: evidence from the effects of action on perception and attention. Mind & Language 2007, 22(5):534-547. Available from ISI:000250553300003.
13. Humphreys G.W., Wulff M., Yoon E.Y., Riddoch M. Neuropsychological evidence for visual- and motor-based affordance: effects of reference frame and object-hand congruence. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition 2010, 36(3):659-670. .Available from WOS:000277090600008.
14. Humphreys G.W., Yoon E.Y., Kumar S., Lestou V., Kitadono K., Roberts K.L., et al. The interaction of attention and action: from seeing action to acting on perception. British Journal of Psychology 2010, 101:185-206. .Available from WOS:000277069800001.
15. Karnath H.O. Deficits of attention in acute and recovered visual hemi-neglect. Neuropsychologia 1988, 26(1):27-43. Available from WOS:A1988M507600003.
16. Kumada T., Humphreys G.W. Lexical recovery from extinction: interactions between visual form and stored knowledge modulate visual selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2001, 18(5):465-478. .Available from ISI:000169370000004.
17. Kumar S., Yoon E.Y., Humphreys G.W. Perceptual and motor-based responses to hand actions on objects: evidence from ERPs. Experimental Brain Research 2012, 220(2):153-164. .Available from MEDLINE:22644235.
18. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9(1):97-113. .Available from WOS:A1971J199600013.
19. Phillips J.C., Ward R. S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition 2002, 9(4-5):540-558. .Available from ISI:000175507900008.
20. Rees G., Wojciulik E., Clarke K., Husain M., Frith C., Driver J. Unconscious activation of visual cortex in the damaged right hemisphere of a parietal patient with extinction. Brain 2000, 123:1624-1633. .Available from WOS:000089144400008.
21. Riddoch M., Pippard B., Booth L., Rickell J., Summers J., Brownson A., et al. Effects of action relations on the configural coding between objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37(2):580-587. .Available from WOS:000289134600018.
22. Riddoch M.J., Humphreys G.W., Edwards S., Baker T., Willson K. Seeing the action: neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6(1):82-89. .Available from 10.1038/nn984.
23. Riddoch M.J., Humphreys G.W., Hickman M., Clift J., Daly A., Colin J. I can see what you are doing: action familiarity and affordance promote recovery from extinction. Cognitive Neuropsychology 2006, 23(4):583-605. .Available from ISI:000237990000004.
24. Roberts K.L., Humphreys G.W. Action relationships concatenate representations of separate objects in the ventral visual system. NeuroImage 2010, 52(4):1541-1548. .Available from WOS:000280695200042.
25. Roberts K.L., Humphreys G.W. The one that does, leads: action relations influence the perceived temporal order of graspable objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 2010, 36(3):776-780. .Available from WOS:000278174000019.
26. Roberts K.L., Humphreys G.W. Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly-presented objects. Attention Perception & Psychophysics 2011, 73(2):597-612. .Available from WOS:000287252900025.
27. Robertson I., Frasca R. Attentional load and visual neglect. International Journal of Neuroscience 1992, 62(1-2):45-56. .Available from WOS:A1992JP98500005.
28. Tucker M., Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24(3):830-846. .Available from WOS:000073900100011.
29. Valyear K.F., Gallivan J.P., McLean D., Culham J.C. fMRI repetition suppression for familiar but not arbitrary actions with tools. Journal of Neuroscience 2012, 32(12):4247-4259. .Available from WOS:000302119800026.
30. Vingerhoets G., Vandamme K., Vercammen A. Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain and Cognition 2009, 69(3):481-489. .Available from WOS:000264220800005.
31. Ward R., Goodrich S., Driver J. Grouping reduces visual extinction: neuropsychological evidence for weight-linkage in visual selection. Visual Cognition 1994, 1(1):101-129. .Available from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/13506289408402295.