Affiliation:
1. School of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, United States
2. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, the Netherlands; Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, the Netherlands
3. Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, United States
Abstract
Most objects have well-defined affordances. Investigating perception of affordances of objects that were not created for a specific purpose would provide insight into how affordances are perceived. In addition, comparison of perception of affordances for such objects across different exploratory modalities (visual vs. haptic) would offer a strong test of the lawfulness of information about affordances (i.e., the invariance of such information over transformation). Along these lines, “feelies”— objects created by Gibson with no obvious function and unlike any common object—could shed light on the processes underlying affordance perception. This study showed that when observers reported potential uses for feelies, modality significantly influenced what kind of affordances were perceived. Specifically, visual exploration resulted in more noun labels (e.g., “toy”) than haptic exploration which resulted in more verb labels (i.e., “throw”). These results suggested that overlapping, but distinct classes of action possibilities are perceivable using vision and haptics. Semantic network analyses revealed that visual exploration resulted in object-oriented responses focused on object identification, whereas haptic exploration resulted in action-oriented responses. Cluster analyses confirmed these results. Affordance labels produced in the visual condition were more consistent, used fewer descriptors, were less diverse, but more novel than in the haptic condition.
Subject
Artificial Intelligence,Sensory Systems,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,Ophthalmology
Reference52 articles.
1. Benoit K., Matsuo A., Benoit M. K. (2018). R Package:‘spacyr.’ https://mran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2018-03-30/web/packages/spacyr/spacyr.pdf
2. Hefting for a maximum distance throw: A smart perceptual mechanism.
3. Carello, C. & Turvey, M. T. (2000) Rotational dynamics and dynamic touch. In: M. Heller (ed.), Touch, representation and blindness, pp. 26-65. Oxford University Press.
4. Caviness J. A. (1962). The equivalence of visual and tactual stimulation for solid shape perception [master’s thesis]. Cornell University.
5. The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献