Abstract
Merely perceiving objects usually grasped with a power or a precision grip (e.g., an apple vs. a cherry) potentiate power-grip and precision-grip responses, respectively. According to the size-coding account, this potentiation effect is due to the compatibility between size codes associated with both stimuli and responses, rather than to the simulation of motor information stored at a conceptual level (i.e., the embodied account). At the stimulus level, size-coding would occur, because objects associated with a power grip are usually presented in a larger visual size than objects associated with a precision grip. However, this explanation is challenged by results, showing that reading nouns of objects associated with power or precision grip also leads to potentiation effects, even though the visual size of the displayed object is no longer perceived. Therefore, we designed three experiments to better understand this word-based potentiation effect and to investigate whether it relies on size codes. Our results showed a word-based potentiation effect only when the object nouns were interleaved with pictures depicting the objects in their typical visual size. We discuss the contributions of these results for both the size-coding account and the embodied account of the potentiation effect of grasping behaviors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
Notes
Of note, potentiation effects have been explained via three different concepts: micro-affordances, motor simulation, and motor representations (for a discussion, see Chong & Proctor, 2020). In this article, we only used the concept of micro-affordances and motor simulation for a simplification.
We conducted our power analysis based on the potentiation effect reported by Tucker and Ellis (2004) for their Experiment 3. They said: “Averaged over both images and words the compatibility effect was highly significant for both measures of performance. Reaction times for compatible trials were on average 10.1 ms faster, F(1, 69) = 24.8, p < .001.” From this statement, we computed the corresponding \({\upeta }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)= .26 and its bias-corrected version \({\upomega }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)= .25 (e.g., Lakens, 2013, for a brief discussion on the advantages of \({\upomega }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\) over \({\upeta }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)). The results of the power analyses using \({\upeta }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)= .26 or \({\upomega }_{\mathrm{p}}^{2}\)= .25 yielded very similar sample size (n = 26 vs. n = 27, respectively). We chose to report the results of the analysis conducted with the smallest effect size.
For each experiment, as well as for the between-experiment analysis, we run linear mixed models which largely confirmed ANOVA results. Detailed method and results are available in the “supplementary material”, specifically in Table S2 (results for the three experiments separately) and S3 (results for Experiments 1 and 2 combined). Raw data of all experiments are available online (see https://osf.io/fqhu5).
Obviously, in French, we did not use the words “APPLE” and “CHERRY”, but a similar reasoning applies to the French words we used (see Appendix 1).
References
American Psychological Association. (2016). Revision of Ethical Standard 3.04 of the Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, as amended 2010). The American Psychologist, 71(9), 900. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000102
Anderson, S. J., Yamagishi, N., & Karavia, V. (2002). Attentional processes link perception and action. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series b: Biological Sciences, 269(1497), 1225–1232. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1998
Azaad, S., Laham, S. M., & Shields, P. (2019). A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect. Cognition, 190, 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.028
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1281–1289. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0319
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3
Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2015). Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00351
Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E., & Cree, G. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.010
Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E., & van Noordenne, M. (2021). Motor representations evoked by objects under varying action intentions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000876
Chong, I., & Proctor, R. W. (2020). On the evolution of a radical concept: Affordances according to Gibson and their subsequent use and development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619868207
Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161934
Ellis, R., Tucker, M., Symes, E., & Vainio, L. (2007). Does selecting one visual object from several require inhibition of the actions associated with nonselected objects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(3), 670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.670
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Ferri, F., Riggio, L., Gallese, V., & Costantini, M. (2011). Objects and their nouns in peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia, 49(13), 3519–3524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.001
Flumini, A., Barca, L., Borghi, A. M., & Pezzulo, G. (2015). How do you hold your mouse? Tracking the compatibility effect between hand posture and stimulus size. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(6), 928–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0622-0
García, A. M., & Ibáñez, A. (2016). A touch with words: Dynamic synergies between manual actions and language. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 68, 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.04.022
Gentilucci, M., & Campione, G. C. (2011). Do postures of distal effectors affect the control of actions of other distal effectors? Evidence for a system of interactions between hand and mouth. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019793
Gentilucci, M., Campione, G. C., Dalla Volta, R., & Bernardis, P. (2009). The observation of manual grasp actions affects the control of speech: A combined behavioral and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 47(14), 3190–3202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.020
Grèzes, J., Tucker, M., Armony, J., Ellis, R., & Passingham, R. E. (2003). Objects automatically potentiate action: An fMRI study of implicit processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17(12), 2735–2740. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02695.x
Guerineau, R., Heurley, L. P., Morgado, N., Brouillet, D., & Dru, V. (2021). Anticipating the magnitude of response outcomes can induce a potentiation effect for manipulable objects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01535-0
Heurley, L. P., Brouillet, T., Coutté, A., & Morgado, N. (2020). Size coding of alternative responses is sufficient to induce a potentiation effect with manipulable objects. Cognition, 205, 104377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104377
Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H., & Ryan, C. S. (2017). Data Analysis: A Model Comparison Approach to Regression, ANOVA, and Beyond (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Kostov, K., & Janyan, A. (2021). Critical bottom-up attentional factors in the handle orientation effect: Asymmetric luminance transients and object-center eccentricity relative to fixation. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(4), 1685–1705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01329-w
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(863), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Makris, S., Hadar, A. A., & Yarrow, K. (2011). Viewing objects and planning actions: On the potentiation of grasping behaviours by visual objects. Brain and Cognition, 77(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.08.002
Masaki, H., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology, 37(4), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3740464
Masson, M. E. (2015). Toward a deeper understanding of embodiment. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 69(2), 159. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000055
Matheson, H. E., & Barsalou, L. W. (2018). Embodiment and grounding in cognitive neuroscience. WileyIn S. L. Thompson-Schill (Ed.), The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (Vol. 4, pp. 357–383)
Matheson, H. E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2019). Investigating grounded conceptualization: Stimulus-response compatibility for tool handles is due to spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(4), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000616
Matheson, H. E., White, N., & McMullen, P. A. (2014a). Testing the embodied account of object naming: A concurrent motor task affects naming artifacts and animals. Acta Psychologica, 145, 33–43.
Matheson, H. E., White, N. C., & McMullen, P. A. (2014b). A test of the embodied simulation theory of object perception: Potentiation of responses to artifacts and animals. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78(4), 465–482.
New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195598
Niemi, P., & Naatanen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 133–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.133
Osiurak, F., & Badets, A. (2016). Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. Psychological Review, 123(5), 534.
Pecher, D., Roest, S., & Zeelenberg, R. (2019). The effect of grasp compatibility in go/no-go and two-choice tasks. Memory & Cognition, 47(6), 1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00917-5
Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Maiorana, N. V., Horoufchin, H., Rubichi, S., Lugli, L., et al. (2018). Correspondence effect driven by salient visual asymmetries in integral object stimuli. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84, 728–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1079-3
Pellicano, A., Lugli, L., Binkofski, F., Rubichi, S., Iani, C., & Nicoletti, R. (2019). The unimanual handle-to-hand correspondence effect: Evidence for a location coding account. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 83(7), 1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1009-4
Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R. (2002). SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9(4–5), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280143000575
Proctor, R. W., & Miles, J. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects? Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 60, pp. 227–266). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800090-8.00006-8
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2006). Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles. CRC press Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203022795
Proctor, R. W., Miles, J. D., & Baroni, G. (2011). Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0053-5
Roest, S. A., Pecher, D., Naeije, L., & Zeelenberg, R. (2016). Alignment effects in beer mugs: Automatic action activation or response competition? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(6), 1665–1680. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1130-7
Sakreida, K., Effnert, I., Thill, S., Menz, M. M., Jirak, D., Eickhoff, C. R., Ziemke, T., Eickhoff, S. B., Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2016). Affordance processing in segregated parieto-frontal dorsal stream sub-pathways. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.032
Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027448
Taylor, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2010). Grasping spheres, not planets. Cognition, 115(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.006
Tiainen, M., Tiippana, K., Vainio, M., Komeilipoor, N., & Vainio, L. (2017). Interaction in planning vocalizations and grasping. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1590–1602. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1195416
Tiainen, M., Tiippana, K., Vainio, M., Peromaa, T., Komeilipoor, N., & Vainio, L. (2016). Selective influences of precision and power grips on speech categorization. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0151688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151688
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280042000144
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.01.004
Vainio, L., Schulman, M., Tiippana, K., & Vainio, M. (2013). Effect of syllable articulation on precision and power grip performance. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e53061. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053061
Vainio, L., Tiainen, M., Tiippana, K., & Vainio, M. (2014). Shared processing of planning articulatory gestures and grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 232(7), 2359–2368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3932-y
Veale, J. F. (2014). Edinburgh handedness inventory–short form: a revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 19(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2013.783045
Welford, W. T., Brebner, J. M., & Kirby, N. (1980). Reaction times. Stanford University.
Xiong, A., Proctor, R. W., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2019). Visual salience, not the graspable part of a pictured eating utensil, grabs attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(5), 1454–1463. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01679-7
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix 1
List of words used with (1) the phase in which they were used (familiarization or test), (2) the size associated with the object denoted (large or small), (3) their English names, (4) their French names, (5) their associated film frequency (from Lexique3.org, New et al., 2004), (6) their associated book frequency (also from Lexique3.org, New et al., 2004), and (7) their number of letters. Both frequencies were reported per million of occurrences.
Phase | Associate size | English name | French name | Film frequency | Book frequency | Number of letters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Familiarization | Large | Lemon | Citron | 8.10 | 9.05 | 6 |
Familiarization | Large | Banana | Banane | 6.09 | 4.05 | 6 |
Familiarization | Small | Radish | Radis | 1.81 | 3.11 | 5 |
Familiarization | Small | Peanut | Cacahuette | 1.71 | 0.74 | 10 |
Test | Large | Apple | Pomme | 19.77 | 46.08 | 5 |
Test | Large | Pear | Poire | 5.67 | 10.81 | 5 |
Test | Large | Eggplant | Aubergine | 0.35 | 0.61 | 9 |
Test | Large | Avocado | Avocat | 89.28 | 24.32 | 6 |
Test | Small | Cherry | Cerise | 2.75 | 3.31 | 6 |
Test | Small | Strawberry | Fraise | 5.28 | 3.92 | 6 |
Test | Small | Hazelnut | Noisette | 0.57 | 1.69 | 8 |
Test | Small | Grape | Raisin | 5.88 | 4.86 | 6 |
Appendix 2
Pictures of objects used with (1) the phase in which they were used (familiarization or test) and (2) the size associated with the object depicted: (a) large or (b) small.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harrak, M.H., Heurley, L.P., Morgado, N. et al. The visual size of graspable objects is needed to induce the potentiation of grasping behaviors even with verbal stimuli. Psychological Research 86, 2067–2082 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01635-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01635-x