Attending to the possibilities of action

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 368, Issue 1628, 2013, Pages

  Humphreys, Glyn W ^a   Kumar, Sanjay ^a   Yoon, Eun Young ^b   Wulff, Melanie ^c   Roberts, Katherine L ^d   Jane Riddoch, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b Korean Neuro training Center   (South Korea)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Action; Attention; Visual affordance

Indexed keywords

EXTINCTION; FAMILIARITY; NEUROLOGY; PERCEPTION; SURVIVAL; VISUALIZATION;

ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; HUMAN; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SACCADIC EYE MOVEMENT; VISION; ACTION; REVIEW; VISUAL AFFORDANCE;

ATTENTION; CUES; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SACCADES; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

ACTION; ATTENTION; VISUAL AFFORDANCE;

EID: 84896586519     PISSN: 09628436     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0059     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Theeuwes J. 1992 Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Percept. Psychophys. 13, 27-36.
2. Downing PE. 2000 Interactions between visual working memory and selective attention. Psychol. Sci. 11, 467-473. (doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00290)
3. Folk CL, Remington RW, Johnston JC. 1992 Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percep. Perform. 18, 1030-1044. (doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1030)
4. Moores E, Laiti L, Chelazzi L. 2003 Associative knowledge controls deployment of visual attention. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 182-189. (doi:10.1038/nn996)
5. Telling A, Kumar S, Meyer AS, Humphreys GW. 2010 Electrophysiological evidence of semantic interference in visual search. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10, 2212-2225. (doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21348)
6. Luck SJ, Hillyard SA. 1990 Electrophysiological evidence for parallel and serial processing during visual-search. Percept. Psychophys. 48, 603-617. (doi:10.3758/BF03211606)
7. Belke E, Humphreys GW, Watson DG, Meyer AS, Telling AL. 2008 Top-down effects of semantic knowledge in visual search are modulated by cognitive but not perceptual load. Percept. Psychophys. 70, 1444-1458. (doi:10.3758/PP.70.8.1444)
8. Rappaport SJ, Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ. 2013 The attraction of yellow corn: reduced attentional constraints on coding learned conjunctive relations. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform 39, 1016-1031. (doi:10.1037/a0032506)
9. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ. 2007 How to define an object? Mind Lang. 22, 534-547. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00319.x)
10. Hebb DO. 1949 The organization of behaviour. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW, Edwards S, Baker T, Willson K. 2003 Seeing the action: neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 82-89. (doi:10.1038/nn984)
12. Riddoch MJ, Chechlacz M, Mevorach C, Mavritsaki E, Allen HA, Humphreys GW. 2010 The neural mechanisms of visual selection: the view from neuropsychology. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1191, 156-181. (doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05448.x)
13. Riddoch MJ, Pippard P, Booth L, Rickell J, Summer J, Brownson A, Humphreys GW. 2011 Effects of action relations on the configural coding between objects. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 37, 580-587. (doi:10.1037/a0020745)
14. Rossion B. 2013 The composite face illusion: a whole window into our understanding of holistic face perception. Vis. Cogn. 29, 1-115.
15. Green C, Hummel JE. 2006 Familiar interacting object pairs are perceptually grouped. J. Exp. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform. 32, 1107-1119. (doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.5.1107)
16. Yoon EY, Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW. 2010 The paired object affordance effect. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 36, 812-824. (doi:10.1037/a0017175)
17. Wulff M, Humphreys GW. 2013 Visual responses to action between unfamiliar object pairs modulate extinction. Neuropsychologia 51, 622-632. (doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.004)
18. Roberts KL, Humphreys GW. 2010 The one that does leads: action relations alter the perceived temporal order of graspable objects. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 36, 776-780. (doi:10.1037/a0018739)
19. Roberts KL, Humphreys GW. 2010 Action relationships concatenate representations of separate objects in the ventral visual system. Neuroimage 42, 1541-1548. (doi:10.1016/j. neuroimage.2010.05.044)
20. Kim JG, Biederman I. 2011 Where do objects become scenes? Cereb. Cortex 21, 1738-1746. (doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq240)
21. Kim JG, Biederman I, Juan JG. 2011 The benefit of object interactions arises in the lateral occipital cortex independent of attentional modulation from the intraparietal sulcus: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. J. Neurosci. 33, 7846-7855.
22. Corbetta M, Shulman GL. 2002 Control of goaldirected and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 201-215. (doi:10.1038/nrn755)
23. Chechlacz M, Rotshstein P, Hansen PC, Deb S, Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW. 2013 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 49, 487-506. (doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.11.008)
24. Vuilleumier P, Schwartz S, Verdon V, Maravita A, Hutton C, Husain M, Driver J. 2008 Abnormal attentional modulation of retinotopic cortex in parietal patients with spatial neglect. Curr. Biol. 18, 1525-1529. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.072)
25. Fogassi L, Ferrari PF, Gesieriach B, Rozzi S, Chersi F, Rizzolatti G. 2005 Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding. Science 308, 662-667. (doi:10.1126/science.1106138)
26. Johnson-Frey SH, Newman-Norlund R, Grafton ST. 2005 distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills. Cereb. Cortex 15, 681-695. (doi:10.1093/cercor/bhh169)
27. Humphreys GW, Wulff M, Yoon EY, Riddoch MJ. 2010 Effects of action relation and affordance that do and do not depend on a self-reference frame: neuropsychological evidence. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 659-670. (doi:10.1037/a0019317)
28. th Annual Conf. of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, Italy, 21-23 July (eds B Bara, L Barsalou, B Bucciarelli), pp. 322-327. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Yoon EY, Humphreys GW. 2005 Direct and indirect effects of action on object classification. Mem. Cogn. 33, 1131-1146. (doi:10.3758/BF03193218)
30. Kumar SJ, Yoon EY, Humphreys GW. 2012 Perceptual and motor-based responses to hand actions on objects: evidence from ERPs. Exp. Brain Res. 220, 153-164. (doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3126-4)
31. Reid VM, Hoehl S, Grigutsch M, Groendahl A, Parise E, Striano T. 2009 The neural correlates of infant and adult goal prediction: evidence for semantic processing systems. Dev. Psychol. 45, 620-629. (doi:10.1037/a0015209)
32. Kumar SJ, Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW. 2013 Mu rhythm desynchronization reveals motoric influences of hand action on object recognition. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 1-9. (doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00066)
33. Pfurtscheller G, Neuper C, Krausz G. 2000 Functional dissociation of lower and upper frequency mu rhythms in relation to voluntary limb movement. Clin. Neurophysiol. 111, 1873-1879. (doi:10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00428-4)
34. Pfurtscheller G, Stancak Jr A, Neuper C. 1997 Eventrelated synchronization (ERS) in the alpha band- an electrophysiological correlate of cortical idling: a review. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 24, 39-46. (doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(96)00066-9)
35. Derambure P, Defebvre L, Bourriez JL, Cassim F, Guieu JD. 1999 Event-related desynchronization and synchronization. Reactivity of electrocortical rhythms in relation to the planning and execution of voluntary movement. Neurophysiol. Clin. 29, 53-70. (doi:10.1016/S0987-7053(99)80041-0)
36. Pineda J. 2005 The functional significance of mu rhythms: translating 'seeing' and 'hearing' into 'doing'. Brain Res. Rev. 50, 57-68. (doi:10.1016/j. brainresrev.2005.04.005)
37. Muthukumaraswamy SD, Johnson BW. 2004 Changes in rolandic mu rhythm during observation of a precision grip. Psychophysiology 41, 52-156. (doi:10.1046/j.1469-8986.2003.00129.x)
38. Muthukumaraswamy SD, Johnson BW, McNair NA. 2004 Mu rhythm modulation during observation of an object-directed grasp. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 19, 195-201. (doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.12.001)
39. Hoenig K, Sim EJ, Bochev V, Herrnberger B, Kiefer M. 2000 Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motor, and motion-related areas. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 1799-1814. (doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20123)
40. Kiefer M, Sim EJ, Helbig H, Graf M. 2011 Tracking the time course of action priming on object recognition: evidence for fast and slow influences of action on perception. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 1864-1874. (doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21543)
41. Kumar SJ, Riddoch MJ, Humphreys GW. Submitted. Action information modulates attentional orienting: an ERP study. Exp. Brain Res.
42. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ. 2001 Detection by action: evidence for affordances in search in neglect. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 84-88. (doi:10.1038/82940)
43. Bekkering H, Neggers SFW. 2002 Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychol. Sci. 13, 370-374. (doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2002.00466.x)
44. Forti S, Humphreys GW. 2008 Lower visual-field sensitivity to object viewpoint and action instruction in search. Psychol. Sci. 19, 42-48. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02044.x)
45. Previc FH. 1990 Functional specialization in the lower and upper visual fields in humans: its ecological origins and neurophysiological implications. Behav. Brain Sci. 13, 519-542. (doi:10.1017/S0140525X00080018)
46. Vainio L, Symes E, Ellis R, Tucker M, Ottoboni G. 2008 On the relations between action planning, object identification, and motor representations of observed actions and objects. Cognition 108, 444-465. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.007)
47. Bundesen C. 1990 A theory of visual attention. Psychol. Rev. 97, 523-547. (doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.4.523)
48. Heinke D, Humphreys GW. 2003 Attention, spatial representation and visual neglect: simulating emergent attentional processes in the Selective Attention for Identification Model (SAIM). Psychol. Rev. 110, 29-87. (doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.29)
49. Wolfe JM. 1994 Guided search 2.0. A revised model of visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1, 202-238. (doi:10.3758/BF03200774)
50. Desimone R, Duncan J. 1995 Neural mechanisms of selective attention. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 193-222. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205)
51. Bar M. 2003 A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 600-609. (doi:10.1162/089892903321662976)
52. Kestutis Kveraga K, Boshyan J, Bar M. 2007 Magnocellular projections as the trigger of topdown facilitation in recognition. J. Neurosci. 27, 13 232-13 240. (doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3481-07.2007)
53. Gillebert C, Humphreys GW. In press. Mutual interplay between perceptual organization and attention: a neuropsychological perspective. In Handbook of perceptual organization (ed. J Wagemans). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54. Gibson JJ. 1979 The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.