Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-04-2025 | Research

The spatial coding of responses can depend on the spatial features of action goals

Auteurs: Elsa Pezet, Lucas Boussard, Nicolas Morgado, Loïc P. Heurley

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2025

Abstract

In this work, we aimed to explore whether the spatial coding of responses is influenced by the spatial features of the action goal and whether this coding extends beyond the spatial features of the response keys to include the spatial features of the tools used. Therefore, we employed a size-based Simon effect in which participants were presented with either a large or small object, appearing in blue or orange, during each trial. Depending on the color, participants had to press a switch using a stick with either a large or small component. This component was located at either the end of the stick (Experiment 1) or in the middle (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, the size difference between the stick components was larger than in Experiment 1. Importantly, the size of both possible keys was strictly similar. Our findings revealed a consistent pattern across all three experiments. Participants exhibited shorter response times when the size of the stimulus matched the size of the stick component compared to when it did not. These findings suggest that participants code their responses based on the spatial features of the action goal (i.e., size) and that this coding extends beyond the response keys to include features of the tools used. These results contribute to our understanding of action representation and provide insights into the neurocognitive processes associated with tool use.

vorige artikel Assessing the limits on size-pitch mapping reveals the interplay between top-down and bottom-up influences on relative crossmodal correspondences

volgende artikel Open hands, large numbers: manual gestures influence random number generation

Experimental protocols of all three experiment have been preregistered (https://osf.io/dk3gz/?view_only=582f34916ca14fad84c7f6bf7ea4933b, https://osf.io/n84yr/?view_only=02bebea0809d489fa5b6816f79c55f9c and https://osf.io/hp7g2/?view_only=87c1388fe2644ac092b8e98996417cfd for respectively Experiment 1, 2 and 3). All pictures, OpenSesame experimental scripts, raw data and analyses were available online on OSF (https://osf.io/bn6ps/?view_only=7fd57720866c48d5b3e60e563feafa6b).

The power analysis reported here differs from the one that we pre-registered because we initially used an inappropriate test in G*Power 3. Accordingly, we performed a new power analysis using the appropriate test and we only reported it in the current version of the manuscript. It is noteworthy that our design has 90% power to detect our effect of interest if it is at least as small as η_p² = 0.26 (the lower-bound of the 60% CI) and 98% power to detect it if its size is as large as η_p² = 0.37 reported by Heurley et al. (2020).

A complementary analysis of the SOA is available online on OSF (https://osf.io/bn6ps/?view_only=7fd57720866c48d5b3e60e563feafa6b).

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/amp0000102CrossRef

Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365CrossRefPubMed

Arbib, M. A., Bonaiuto, J. B., Jacobs, S., & Frey, S. H. (2009). Tool use and the distalization of the end-effector. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73, 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0242-2CrossRefPubMed

Badets, A., & Osiurak, F. (2017). The ideomotor recycling theory for tool use, language, and foresight. Experimental Brain Research, 235, 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4812-4CrossRefPubMed

Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562237CrossRefPubMed

Buhlmann, I., Umilta, C., & Wascher, E. (2007). Response coding and visuomotor transformation in the Simon task: The role of action goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1269CrossRefPubMed

Cook, R., & Bird, G. (2013). Do mirror neurons really mirror and do they really code for action goals? Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 49(10), 2944–2945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.05.006CrossRefPubMed

D’Ausilio, A., Bartoli, E., & Maffongelli, L. (2015). Grasping synergies: A motor-control approach to the mirror neuron mechanism. Physics of Life Reviews, 12, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2014.11.002CrossRefPubMed

Farnè, A., & Làdavas, E. (2000). Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. Neuroreport, 11(8), 1645–1649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002219900264CrossRefPubMed

Farnè, A., Demattè, M. L., & Làdavas, E. (2005a). Neuropsychological evidence of modular organization of the near peripersonal space. Neurology, 65(11), 1754–1758. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000187121.30480.09CrossRefPubMed

Farnè, A., Iriki, A., & Làdavas, E. (2005b). Shaping multisensory action–space with tools: Evidence from patients with cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia, 43(2), 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.010CrossRefPubMed

Farnè, A., Serino, A., & Làdavas, E. (2007). Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space following tool-use: Determinants and spatial characteristics revealed through cross-modal extinction. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 43(3), 436–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70468-4CrossRefPubMed

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/BF03193146CrossRefPubMed

Federico, G., Osiurak, F., Brandimonte, M. A., Salvatore, M., & Cavaliere, C. (2023). The visual encoding of graspable unfamiliar objects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 87(2), 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01673-zCrossRefPubMed

Guerineau, R., Heurley, L. P., Morgado, N., Brouillet, D., & Dru, V. (2022). Anticipating the magnitude of response outcomes can induce a potentiation effect for manipulable objects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 86(3), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01535-0CrossRefPubMed

Haddad, L., Wamain, Y., & Kalénine, S. (2023). Stimulus–response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231161310CrossRef

Harrak, M. H., Heurley, L. P., Morgado, N., Mennella, R., & Dru, V. (2022). The visual size of graspable objects is needed to induce the potentiation of grasping behaviors even with verbal stimuli. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 86(7), 2067–2082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01635-xCrossRefPubMed

Heister, G., Ehrenstein, W. H., & Schroeder-Heister, P. (1987). Spatial SR compatibility with unimanual two-finger choice reactions: Effects of irrelevant stimulus location. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 195–201. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210508CrossRef

Heurley, L. P. (2025). Body-related components of action can be spatially coded along the size dimension. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology (in revision).

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.2020.104377CrossRefPubMed

Heurley, L. P., Sabek, H., & Guerineau, R. (2023a). Beyond grasping: Syllables processing influences mere manual keypress. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.

Heurley, L. P., Harrak, M. H., Guerineau, R., Ferrier, L. P., & Morgado, N. (2023b). The visual size is enough to automatically induce the potentiation of grasping behaviours. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17470218231155836. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231155836

Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 55(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419687CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 59(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00425832CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73, 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2019). Theory of Event Coding (TEC) V2. 0: Representing and controlling perception and action. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 81, 2139–2154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01779-4CrossRef

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103CrossRefPubMed

Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport, 7(14), 2325–2330.CrossRefPubMed

JASP Team (2023). JASP (Version 0.18.20). [Computer Software]. https://jasp-stats.org/

Kilner, J. M. (2011). More than one pathway to action understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(8), 352–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.06.005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Klatzky, R. L., & Lederman, S. J. (1999). Tactile roughness perception with a rigid link interposed between skin and surface. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(4), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205532CrossRef

Làdavas, E. (2002). Functional and dynamic properties of visual peripersonal space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01814-3CrossRefPubMed

Macnamara, A., Keage, H. A. D., & Loetscher, T. (2018). Mapping of non-numerical domains on space: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 236(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5154-6CrossRefPubMed

Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.008CrossRefPubMed

Maravita, A., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2003). Multisensory integration and the body schema: Close to hand and within reach. Current Biology, 13(13), R531–R539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00449-4CrossRefPubMed

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/cep0000055CrossRefPubMed

Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7CrossRefPubMed

Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0435-yCrossRefPubMed

Miller, L. E., Cawley-Bennett, A., Longo, M. R., & Saygin, A. P. (2017a). The recalibration of tactile perception during tool use is body-part specific. Experimental Brain Research, 235(10), 2917–2926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5028-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Miller, L. E., Longo, M. R., & Saygin, A. P. (2017b). Visual illusion of tool use recalibrates tactile perception. Cognition, 162, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.022CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Miller, L. E., Montroni, L., Koun, E., Salemme, R., Hayward, V., & Farnè, A. (2018). Sensing with tools extends somatosensory processing beyond the body. Nature, 561(7722), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0460-0CrossRefPubMed

Miller, L. E., Longo, M. R., & Saygin, A. P. (2019). Tool use modulates somatosensory cortical processing in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(12), 1782–1795. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01452CrossRefPubMed

Nicoletti, R., & Umilta, C. (1985). Responding with hand and foot: The right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present. Perception & Psychophysics, 38(3), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207147CrossRef

Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception & Psychophysics, 35(4), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206337CrossRef

Osiurak, F., & Badets, A. (2014). Pliers, not fingers: Tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm. Cognition, 130(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.005CrossRefPubMed

Osiurak, F., & Federico, G. (2021). Four ways of (mis-) conceiving embodiment in tool use. Synthese, 199(1–2), 3853–3879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02960-1CrossRef

Osiurak, F., Jarry, C., & Le Gall, D. (2011). Re-examining the gesture Engram hypothesis. New perspectives on apraxia of tool use. Neuropsychologia, 49(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.041CrossRefPubMed

Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y., & Badets, A. (2017). What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.014CrossRef

Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2014). Safeguard Power as a Protection Against Imprecise Power Estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528519CrossRefPubMed

Pilacinski, A., De Haan, S., Donato, R., & Almeida, J. (2021). Tool heads prime saccades. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91254-8CrossRef

Proctor, R. W., & Miles, J. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects? In 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., & Shao, C. (2010). Does the contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence to the auditory Simon effect increase with practice? Experimental Brain Research, 204, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2284-5CrossRefPubMed

Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203022795

Riggio, L., de Gonzaga Gawryszewski, L., & Umilta, C. (1986). What is crossed in crossed-hand effects? Acta Psychologica, 62(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(86)90006-5CrossRef

Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2010). The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpretations. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(4), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2805CrossRefPubMed

Roswarski, T. E., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Auditory stimulus-response compatibility: Is there a contribution of stimulus-hand correspondence? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 63, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00008173CrossRefPubMed

Roswarski, T., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). The role of instructions, practice, and stimulus-hand correspondence on the Simon effect. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 67(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0107-4CrossRefPubMed

Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory SR compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586CrossRefPubMed

Simon, J. R., & SmallJr, A. M. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(5), 433. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028034CrossRefPubMed

Simon, J. R., Hinrichs, J. V., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Auditory SR compatibility: Reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86(1), 97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029783CrossRefPubMed

Sutter, C., Sülzenbrück, S., Rieger, M., & Müsseler, J. (2013). Limitations of distal effect anticipation when using tools. New Ideas in Psychology, 31(3), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2012.12.001CrossRef

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.2013.783045CrossRef

Wallace, R. J. (1971). SR compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(3), 354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030892CrossRefPubMed

Wallace, R. J. (1972). Spatial SR compatibility effects involving kinesthetic cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93(1), 163. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032462CrossRefPubMed

Weser, V. U., & Proffitt, D. R. (2021). Expertise in tool use promotes tool embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13(4), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12538CrossRefPubMed

Wühr, P., & Seegelke, C. (2018). Compatibility between physical stimulus size and left-right responses: Small is left and large is right. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zampini, M., Mawhinney, S., & Spence, C. (2006). Tactile perception of the roughness of the end of a tool: What role does tool handle roughness play? Neuroscience Letters, 400(3), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2006.02.068CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The spatial coding of responses can depend on the spatial features of action goals
Auteurs: Elsa Pezet
Lucas Boussard
Nicolas Morgado
Loïc P. Heurley
Publicatiedatum: 01-04-2025
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2025
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02081-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2025

Open hands, large numbers: manual gestures influence random number generation

Open Access
Research

Transcoding number words to typed multi-digit numerals: revisiting the strange case in Arabic bilinguals

Open Access
Research

The presence of the reverse distance effect depends on the familiarity of the sequences being processed

Open Access
Research

Optimizing working memory assessment: development of shortened versions of complex spans, updating, and binding tasks

Open Access
Research

Meta-analytic evidence for the complex mechanisms underlying congruency sequence effect

Open Access
Research

Not all emotional expressions facilitate recognition of other-race faces in Chinese infants

Open Access
Research

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

The spatial coding of responses can depend on the spatial features of action goals

Abstract

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2025

Open hands, large numbers: manual gestures influence random number generation

Transcoding number words to typed multi-digit numerals: revisiting the strange case in Arabic bilinguals

The presence of the reverse distance effect depends on the familiarity of the sequences being processed

Optimizing working memory assessment: development of shortened versions of complex spans, updating, and binding tasks

Meta-analytic evidence for the complex mechanisms underlying congruency sequence effect

Not all emotional expressions facilitate recognition of other-race faces in Chinese infants

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Open hands, large numbers: manual gestures influence random number generation

Transcoding number words to typed multi-digit numerals: revisiting the strange case in Arabic bilinguals

The presence of the reverse distance effect depends on the familiarity of the sequences being processed

Optimizing working memory assessment: development of shortened versions of complex spans, updating, and binding tasks

Meta-analytic evidence for the complex mechanisms underlying congruency sequence effect

Not all emotional expressions facilitate recognition of other-race faces in Chinese infants