Search

The "SNARC effect" refers to the finding that people respond faster to small numbers with the left hand and to large numbers with the right hand. This effect is often explained by hypothesizing that numbers are represented from left to right in ascending order (Mental Number Line). However, the SNARC effect may not depend on quantitative information, but on other factors such as the order in which numbers are often represented from left to right in our culture. Four experiments were performed to test this hypothesis. In the first experiment, the concept of spatial association was extended to nonnumeric mathematical symbols: the minus and plus symbols. These symbols were presented as fixation points in a spatial compatibility paradigm. The results demonstrated an opposite influence of the two symbols on the target stimulus: the minus symbol tends to favor the target presented on the left, while the plus symbol the target presented on the right, demonstrating that spatial association can emerge in the absence of a numerical context. In the last three experiments, the relationship between quantity and order was evaluated using normal numbers and mirror numbers. Although mirror numbers denote quantity, they are not encountered in a left-to-right spatial organization. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants performed a magnitude classification task with mirror and normal numbers presented together (Experiment 1) or separately (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, participants performed a new task in which quantity information processing was not required: the mirror judgment task. The results show that participants access the quantity of both normal and mirror numbers, but only the normal numbers are spatially organized from left to right. In addition, the physical similarity between the numbers, used as a predictor variable in the last three experiments, showed that the physical characteristics of numbers influenced participants' reaction times.

Previous studies highlighted spatial compatibility effects other than those strictly arising from stimulus-response locations. In particular, the so-called Destination Compatibility (DC) effect refers to faster responses for dynamic (i.e., moving) stimuli the end point of which is spatially compatible with the response key. Four experiments examined whether the DC effect also occurs with static visual stimuli symbolically representing either motion destination alone (Experiment 1a), or both motion origin and destination (Experiments 1b, 2a, and 2b). Overall, our results are consistent in showing a DC effect; most importantly, the present findings reveal a predominance of the effect of destination of motion over that of origin, even when both the starting and ending positions of the stimulus are symbolically represented and participants are instructed to respond according to motion origin. This finding suggests that the DC effect is independent from other stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effects.

Boxing athletes code the opponents’ intention to act in advance to plan and perform the most appropriate counterattack responses; in contrast, non-athletes respond with a defence action (Ottoboni, Russo, Tessari, 2015). We investigated whether such difference is limited at elaborating the most appropriate motor response or relies on different visual and attentional strategies during the early visual analysis of the opponent. We recorded saccades as indexes of visual attentional orienting during an implicit paradigm (i.e., a Simon-like task): nine experienced boxers and nine controls observed photographs of boxing attacks (jab and cross) or a neutral position (guard) and judged the colour of body parts either salient or not for elaborating the attack action (gloves vs. shorts, respectively) by shifting their gaze towards one of two lateral response boxes. Release reaction times (i.e., time between the start of the first saccade away from the fixation rectangle toward the response box) were faster toward the arm that seemed about to attack for the jab stance (the most dynamic one as implying motion) when judging the glove colour in both athletes and controls. No effect emerged when focusing on the shorts that provide irrelevant information for elaborating a defence or attack action. Therefore, athletes and controls seem to use the same visual strategies (saccadic movements) when analysing the opponent’s posture before acting. However, if expertise brings better motor response processing as previously found, the difference between athletes and non-athletes must lay in a later cognitive stage (other than the visual one) devoted to plane the most effective motor response.

Boxing athletes code the opponents’ intention to act in advance to plan and perform the most appropriate counterattack responses; in contrast, non-athletes respond with a defence action (Ottoboni, Russo, Tessari, 2015). We investigated whether such difference is limited at elaborating the most appropriate motor response or relies on different visual and attentional strategies during the early visual analysis of the opponent. We recorded saccades as indexes of visual attentional orienting during an implicit paradigm (i.e., a Simon-like task): nine experienced boxers and nine controls observed photographs of boxing attacks (jab and cross) or a neutral position (guard) and judged the colour of body parts either salient or not for elaborating the attack action (gloves vs. shorts, respectively) by shifting their gaze towards one of two lateral response boxes. Release reaction times (i.e., time between the start of the first saccade away from the fixation rectangle toward the response box) were faster toward the arm that seemed about to attack for the jab stance (the most dynamic one as implying motion) when judging the glove colour in both athletes and controls. No effect emerged when focusing on the shorts that provide irrelevant information for elaborating a defence or attack action. Therefore, athletes and controls seem to use the same visual strategies (saccadic movements) when analysing the opponent’s posture before acting. However, if expertise brings better motor response processing as previously found, the difference between athletes and non-athletes must lay in a later cognitive stage (other than the visual one) devoted to plane the most effective motor response.

Boxing athletes code the opponents' intention to act in advance to plan and perform the most appropriate counterattack responses; in contrast, non-athletes respond with a defence action (Ottoboni, Russo, Tessari, 2015). We investigated whether such difference is limited at elaborating the most appropriate motor response or relies on different visual and attentional strategies during the early visual analysis of the opponent. We recorded saccades as indexes of visual attentional orienting during an implicit paradigm (i.e., a Simon-like task): nine experienced boxers and nine controls observed photographs of boxing attacks (jab and cross) or a neutral position (guard) and judged the colour of body parts either salient or not for elaborating the attack action (gloves vs. shorts, respectively) by shifting their gaze towards one of two lateral response boxes. Release reaction times (i.e., time between the start of the first saccade away from the fixation rectangle toward the response box) were faster toward the arm that seemed about to attack for the jab stance (the most dynamic one as implying motion) when judging the glove colour in both athletes and controls. No effect emerged when focusing on the shorts that provide irrelevant information for elaborating a defence or attack action. Therefore, athletes and controls seem to use the same visual strategies (saccadic movements) when analysing the opponent's posture before acting. However, if expertise brings better motor response processing as previously found, the difference between athletes and non-athletes must lay in a later cognitive stage (other than the visual one) devoted to plane the most effective motor response.

Previous research investigating handle-response compatibility effects with graspable objects used different categories of objects as stimuli, regardless of their specific, intrinsic characteristics. The current study explores whether different types of objects' characteristics may elicit different types of spatial compatibility, that is, handle-response and response-effect compatibility as well as their potential interaction. In Experiment 1, objects having a graspable handle opposite to either a visible functional component (i.e.,handle-function objects: a teapot) or a latent functional component (handle-only objects: a pitcher lacking the spout) were presented separately in different blocks. Both the handle and the goal-directed functional components of these objects were located on the horizontal axis. In Experiment 2, handle-only objects had a handle located on the horizontal axis and a latent functional component located on the vertical axis (e.g., a cup). In both experiments, participants were required to judge the material (plastic and metal) the object was made of. Results showed that the handle-response compatibility effect was sensitive to whether the actions consequences of object manipulation took place on the horizontal rather than on the vertical axis.

The field of numerical cognition represents an interesting case for action-based theories of cognition, since number is a special kind of abstract concept. Several studies have shown that within the parietal lobes adjacent neural regions code numerical magnitude and grasping-related information. This anatomical proximity between brain areas involved in number and sensorimotor processes may account for interactions between numerical magnitude and action. In particular, recent studies have demonstrated a causal role of action perception on numerical magnitude processing. If objects are represented in terms of actions (affordances), the causal role of action on number processing should extend to the case of objects affordances. This study investigates the relationship between numbers and objects affordances in two experiments, without (Experiment 1) or with (Experiment 2) the requirement of an action (i.e. participants were asked to hold an object in their hands during the task). The task consisted in repeating aloud the odd or even digit within a pair depending on the type of the preceding or following object. Order of presentation (object-number vs. number-object), Object type (graspable vs. ungraspable), Object size (small vs. large), and Numerical magnitude (small vs. large) were manipulated for each experiment. Experiment 1 showed a facilitation - in terms of quicker responses - for graspable over ungraspable objects preceded by numbers, and an effect of numerical magnitude after the presentation of graspable objects. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the action execution enhanced overall the sensitivity to numerical magnitude, and that at the same time it interfered with the effects of objects affordances on number processing. Overall, these findings demonstrate that numbers and graspable objects are strongly interrelated, supporting the view that abstract concepts may be grounded in the motor experience., Journal Article, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

The field of numerical cognition represents an interesting case for action-based theories of cognition, since number is a special kind of abstract concept. Several studies have shown that within the parietal lobes adjacent neural regions code numerical magnitude and grasping-related information. This anatomical proximity between brain areas involved in number and sensorimotor processes may account for interactions between numerical magnitude and action. In particular, recent studies have demonstrated a causal role of action perception on numerical magnitude processing. If objects are represented in terms of actions (affordances), the causal role of action on number processing should extend to the case of objects affordances. This study investigates the relationship between numbers and objects affordances in two experiments, without (Experiment 1) or with (Experiment 2) the requirement of an action (i.e. participants were asked to hold an object in their hands during the task). The task consisted in repeating aloud the odd or even digit within a pair depending on the type of the preceding or following object. Order of presentation (object-number vs. number-object), Object type (graspable vs. ungraspable), Object size (small vs. large), and Numerical magnitude (small vs. large) were manipulated for each experiment. Experiment 1 showed a facilitation - in terms of quicker responses - for graspable over ungraspable objects preceded by numbers, and an effect of numerical magnitude after the presentation of graspable objects. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the action execution enhanced overall the sensitivity to numerical magnitude, and that at the same time it interfered with the effects of objects affordances on number processing. Overall, these findings demonstrate that numbers and graspable objects are strongly interrelated, supporting the view that abstract concepts may be grounded in the motor experience., Journal Article, info:eu-repo/semantics/published