Abstract
Classically investigated in the context of judgment tasks about achievable actions, affordances have also been investigated in the context of the stimulus–response compatibility paradigm. Earlier work showed that perceptual categorization performance is significantly faster and more accurate when the orientation of the graspable part of a presented object, and the orientation of the participant’s response are compatible, suggesting that the main function of affordances is restricted to action preparation. Here, we investigate the potential role of affordances in the categorization of ambiguous stimuli through a stimulus–response compatibility paradigm. In other words, we investigate if in ambiguous situations, such as ones in which a stimulus may give rise to two percepts, affordances would stabilize perception on one of these two and, therefore, helps in the subsequent categorizations. Two experiments were run, based on the forced-choice stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) paradigm, with a progressive series of ambiguous (bistable) lateral-graspable objects. In Experiment 1, subjects responded by pressing horizontally opposite keyboard keys, while in Experiment 2, the keyboard keys were vertically separated. Experiment 1 found that subjects perceived the initial object in a bistable series for longer, and exhibited greater response stability in compatible than incompatible situations. In Experiment 2, none of these modulations were significant. Overall, our results show that affordances operationalized through a SRC paradigm modulated how subjects categorized ambiguous stimuli. We argue that affordances may play a substantial role in ambiguous contexts by reducing the uncertainty of such situations.
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00426-020-01328-x/MediaObjects/426_2020_1328_Fig1_HTML.png)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00426-020-01328-x/MediaObjects/426_2020_1328_Fig2_HTML.png)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00426-020-01328-x/MediaObjects/426_2020_1328_Fig3_HTML.png)
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00426-020-01328-x/MediaObjects/426_2020_1328_Fig4_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Data accessibility
Visual stimuli and data files are available at osf.io/sjf4n.
References
Borghi, A. M., Flumini, A., Natraj, N., & Wheaton, L. A. (2012). One hand, two objects: Emergence of affordance in contexts. Brain and Cognition, 80(1), 64–73.
Brunel, L., Vallet, G., Riou, B., Rey, A., & Versace, R. (2015). Grounded conceptual knowledge: Emergence from sensorimotor interactions. In M. H. Fischer & Y. Coello (Eds.), Foundation of embodied cognition. London: Routledge.
Burton, G., & McGowan, J. (1997). Contact and posture in nonvisual judgment of gap crossability. Ecological Psychology, 9(4), 323–354.
Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195.
Cisek, P. (2007). Cortical mechanisms of action selection: The affordance competition hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 362(1485), 1585–1599.
Dings, R. (2017). Understanding phenomenological differences in how affordances solicit action. An exploration. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 89, 1–19.
Ewing, J. A. (1884). Experimental researches in magnetism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 38(235–238), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspl.1884.0062.
Fisher, G. H. (1967). Preparation of ambiguous stimulus materials. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 421–422.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Girardi, G., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Context effects on the processing of action-relevant object features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017180.
Haazebroek, P., Raffone, A., & Hommel, B. (2017). HiTEC: A connectionist model of the interaction between perception and action planning. Psychological Research, 81(6), 1085–1109.
Haken, H., Kelso, J., & Bunz, H. (1985). A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biological Cybernetics, 356, 347–356.
Hock, H., Kelso, J., & Schöner, G. (1993). Bistability and hysteresis in the organization of apparent motion patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(1), 63–80.
Hommel, B. (2013). Grounding attention in action control: The intentional control of selection. Effortless Attention, 1, 121–140.
Kalénine, S., Shapiro, A. D., Flumini, A., Borghi, A. M., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2013). Visual context modulates potentiation of grasp types during semantic object categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 645.
Kelso, J., & Holt, K. (1981). Patterns of human interlimb coordination emerge from the properties of non-linear, limit cycle oscillatory processes: Theory and data. Journal of Motor Behavior, 69, 226.
Kingsnorth, S., & Schmuckler, M. A. (2000). Walking skill versus walking experience as a predictor of barrier crossing in toddlers. Infant Behavior and Development, 23(3), 331–350.
Lopresti-Goodman, S. M., Turvey, M. T., & Frank, T. D. (2011). Behavioral dynamics of the affordance “graspable”. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 73(6), 1948–1965.
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.
Makris, S., Hadar, A. A., & Yarrow, K. (2013). Are object affordances fully automatic? A case of covert attention. Behavioral Neuroscience, 127(5), 797–802.
Marcilly, R., & Luyat, M. (2008). The role of eye height in judgment of an affordance of passage under a barrier. Current Psychology Letters [Online], 24(1), 2008.
Michaels, C. (1988). SR compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(2), 231–240.
Michaels, C. F. (2003). Affordances: Four Points of Debate. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 135–148.
Morgagni, S. (2009). Affordances as possible actions: Elements for a semiotic approach. In: 10th World congress of semiotics, 2009, pp. 867–878.
Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y., & Badets, A. (2017). What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 403.
Poltoratski, S., & Tong, F. (2014). Hysteresis in the dynamic perception of scenes and objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1875–1892.
Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 110–122.
Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Regia-Corte, T., & Luyat, M. (2004). Dynamic constraints on haptic perceptual judgment of slanted surfaces. Current Psychology Letters, 1, 1–9.
Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
Schubotz, Ricarda, & Cramon, D. (2003). Functional-anatomical concepts of human premotor cortex: Evidence from fMRI and PET studies. NeuroImage, 20(Suppl 1), 120–131.
Schwartz, J.-L., Grimault, N., Hupé, J.-M., Moore, B. C. J., & Pressnitzer, D. (2012). Multistability in perception: Binding sensory modalities, an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1591), 896–905.
Stoffregen, T. A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal–environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15, 115.
Stoffregen, T. A. (2004). Breadth and limits of the affordance concept. Ecological Psychology, 16(1), 79–85.
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.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769–800.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116(2), 185–203.
Tuller, B., Case, P., Ding, M., & Kelso, J. A. (1994). The nonlinear dynamics of speech categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(1), 3–16.
Turvey, M. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173.
van der Meer, A. L. (1997). Visual guidance of passing under a barrier. Early Development and Parenting, 6(34), 149–158.
Versace, R., Vallet, G. T., Riou, B., Lesourd, M., Labeye, E., & Brunel, L. (2014). Act-In: An integrated view of memory mechanism. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 280–306.
Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 683–703.
Warren, W. H., Jr., & Whang, S. (1987). Visual guidance of walking through apertures: Body-scaled information for affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 371.
Weast, J. A., Wright, K., Shockley, K., & Riley, M. A. (2008). The influence of perceptual-motor experience on skill-relevant action capabilities. Cognitive Science Journal Archive, pp. 1764–1767.
Weast, J. A., Shockley, K., & Riley, M. A. (2011). The influence of athletic experience and kinematic information on skill-relevant affordance perception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(4), 689–706.
Withagen, R., Araújo, D., & de Poel, H. J. (2017). Inviting affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 45, 11–18.
Withagen, R., & Chemero, A. (2012). Affordances and classification: On the significance of a sidebar in James Gibson’s last book. Philosophical Psychology, 25(4), 521–537.
Xenakis, I., & Arnellos, A. (2013). The relation between interaction aesthetics and affordances. Design Studies, 34(1), 57–73.
Yang, S.-J., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Seeing and doing: Ability to act moderates orientation effects in object perception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(4), 639–648.
Ye, L., Cardwell, W., & Mark, L. S. (2009). Perceiving multiple affordances for objects. Ecological Psychology, 21(3), 185–217.
Żychaluk, K., & Foster, D. H. (2009). Model-free estimation of the psychometric function. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(6), 1414–1425.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors of the present article declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in the present studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national 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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Da Silva, F., Camus, T., Brouillet, D. et al. Is a letterbox always a letterbox? The role of affordances in guiding perceptual categorization. Psychological Research 85, 1673–1684 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01328-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01328-x