Search

Seeing objects usually grasped with a power or a precision grip (e.g., an apple vs. a cherry) potentiates power-grip and precision-grip responses, respectively. An embodied account suggests that this effect occur because the visual representations of objects would integrate some motor processes. A new account, named the size-coding account, argues that this effect could be rather due to an overlapping of size codes used to represent both manipulable objects and response options. In this paper, we investigate whether this potentiation effect could be merely due to a low-level visual feature that favor a size-coding of stimuli: the visual size in which objects are presented on screen. Accordingly, we conducted two experiments in which we presented highly elementary and non-graspable stimuli (i.e., ink spots) either large or small rather than graspable objects. Our results showed that the mere visual size automatically potentiates power- and precision-grip responses that is in line with the size-coding account of the potentiation effect of grasping behaviors. Moreover, these results appeal to improve the methodological control of the size of stimuli especially when researchers try to support the embodied account . Keywords. Visual object representations; Embodied Cognition; Manipulable Objects; Grasping; Visual size; Size coding account

Seeing large (e.g., pears) or small objects (e.g., cherries) potentiates power and precision grip, respectively. According to the motor simulation account, this potentiation effect reflects an automatic access to object representation, including the grip usually associated with the object. Alternatively, this effect might be due to an overlap between magnitude codes used to represent both manipulable objects and response outcomes. In Experiment 1, participants saw objects usually grasped with a power or precision grip and had to mimic these gestures on a specific device. In the corresponding and non-corresponding conditions, each response generated low-pitch or high-pitch tone (i.e., a large vs. small perceptual outcome, respectively). In line with the ideomotor theories according to which voluntary actions are carried out due to the anticipation of their outcomes, each response generated a low-pitch or high-pitch tone. Response times were shorter when the object and the response were compatible than when they were not, independently of the magnitude of the artificial post-response outcome. Our results suggest that the potentiation effect could, under some circumstances, be immune to post-responses outcomes, which could be consistent with both motor simulation and magnitude coding accounts. To further disentangle these explanations, we conducted a second experiment with the device set horizontally to eliminate the grasping component of the responses. As in Heurley et al. (2020), the results revealed a potentiation-like effect, suggesting that the underlying process in our experiments could be better explained by the magnitude coding account.

Our goal is to better understand the coding of responses in the case of Stimulus-Response Compatibility effects. We especially want to disentangle between two possibilities: (i) response coding could be based on the spatial features of the switch (e.g., its location, its size) or (ii) because of the spatial features of the action goal. For this purpose, we will use the size-based SRC effects recently reported by Heurley et al. (2020).

Our goal is to better understand the coding of responses in the case of Stimulus-Response Compatibility effects. We especially want to disentangle between two possibilities: (i) response coding could be based on the spatial features of the switch (e.g., its location, its size) or (ii) because of the spatial features of the action goal. For this purpose, we will use the size-based SRC effects recently reported by Heurley et al. (2020).

The goal of this experimental work is to better understand the number-based potentiation effect originally reported by Moretto and Di Pellegrino (2008).

Our goal is to better understand the coding of responses in the case of Stimulus-Response Compatibility effects. We especially want to disentangle between two possibilities: (i) response coding could be based on the spatial features of the switch (e.g., its location, its size) or (ii) because of the spatial features of the action goal. For this purpose, we will use the size-based SRC effects recently reported by Heurley et al. (2020).

The goal of this work is to better understand the syllable-based potentiation effect originally reported by Vainio et al. (2014, Experiment 1).