Scanning of speechless comics changes spatial biases in mental model construction.

The mental representation of both time and number shows lateral spatial biases, which can be affected by habitual reading and writing direction. However, this effect is in place before children begin to read. One potential early cause is the experiences of looking at picture books together with a carer, as those images also follow the directionality of the script. What is the underlying mechanism for this effect? In the present study, we test the possibility that such experiences induce spatial biases in mental model construction, a mechanism which is a good candidate to induce the biases observed with numbers and times. We presented a speechless comic in either standard (left-to-right) or mirror-reversed (right-to-left) form to adult Spanish participants. We then asked them to draw the scene depicted by sentences like 'the square is between the cross and the circle'. The position of the lateral objects in these drawings reveals the spatial biases at work when building mental models in working memory. Under conditions of highly consistent directionality, the mirror comic changed pre-existing lateral biases. Processes of mental model construction in working memory stand as a potential mechanism for the generation of spatial biases for time and number.This article is part of the theme issue 'Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain'.

Reading and writing direction effects on the aesthetic appreciation of photographs.

Does reading and writing direction (RWD) influence the aesthetic appreciation of photography? Pérez González showed that nineteenth-century Iranian and Spanish professional photographers manifest lateral biases linked to RWD in their compositions. The present study aimed to test whether a population sample showed similar biases. Photographs with left-to-right (L-R) and right-to-left (R-L) directionality were selected from Pérez González's collections and presented in both original and mirror-reversed forms to Spanish (L-R readers) and Moroccan (R-L readers) participants. In Experiment 1, participants rated each picture for its aesthetic pleasingness. The results showed neither effects of lateral organization nor interactions with RWD. In Experiment 2, each picture and its mirror version were presented together and participants chose the one they liked better. Spaniards preferred rightward versions and Moroccans preferred leftward versions. RWD therefore affects aesthetic impressions of photography in our participants when people pay attention to the lateral spatial dimension of pictures. The observed directional aesthetic preferences were not sensitive to the sex of the model in the photographs, failing to support expectations from the hypotheses of emotionality and agency. Preferences were attributable to the interaction between general scanning strategies and scanning habits linked to RWD.

Reading direction causes spatial biases in mental model construction in language understanding.

Correlational evidence suggests that the experience of reading and writing in a certain direction is able to induce spatial biases at both low-level perceptuo-motor skills and high-level conceptual representations. However, in order to support a causal relationship, experimental evidence is required. In this study, we asked whether the direction of the script is a sufficiente cause of spatial biases in the mental models that understanders build when listening to language. In order to establish causality, we manipulated the experience of reading a script with different directionalities. Spanish monolinguals read either normal (left-to-right), mirror reversed (right-to-left), rotated downward (up-down), or rotated upward (down-up) texts, and then drew the contents of auditory descriptions such as "the square is between the cross and the triangle". The directionality of the drawings showed that a brief reading experience is enough to cause congruent and very specific spatial biases in mental model construction. However, there were also clear limits to this flexibility: there was a strong overall preference to arrange the models along the horizontal dimension. Spatial preferences when building mental models from language are the results of both short-term and long-term biases.

How do you hold your mouse? Tracking the compatibility effect between hand posture and stimulus size.

In keeping with the idea that observing objects activates possible motor responses, several experiments revealed compatibility effects between the hand postures used to report a choice and some characteristics of the stimuli. The real-time dynamics of such compatibility effects are currently unknown. We tracked the time course of a categorization experiment requiring subjects to categorize as natural or artifact figures of big and small objects. Participants reported their choice using either a big mouse (requiring a power grip: a hand posture compatible with the grasping of big objects) or a small mouse (requiring a precision grip: a hand posture compatible with the grasping of small objects). We found a compatibility effect between the grip required by the mouse and the grip elicited by objects, even if it was irrelevant to the task. In a following experiment with the same paradigm, lexical stimuli failed to reproduce the same effect. Nevertheless, a compatibility effect mediated by the target-word category (artificial vs. natural) was observed. We discuss the results in the context of affordance effects literature and grounded theories of cognition.

Visual context modulates potentiation of grasp types during semantic object categorization.

Substantial evidence suggests that conceptual processing of manipulable objects is associated with potentiation of action. Such data have been viewed as evidence that objects are recognized via access to action features. Many objects, however, are associated with multiple actions. For example, a kitchen timer may be clenched with a power grip to move it but pinched with a precision grip to use it. The present study tested the hypothesis that action evocation during conceptual object processing is responsive to the visual scene in which objects are presented. Twenty-five healthy adults were asked to categorize object pictures presented in different naturalistic visual contexts that evoke either move- or use-related actions. Categorization judgments (natural vs. artifact) were performed by executing a move- or use-related action (clench vs. pinch) on a response device, and response times were assessed as a function of contextual congruence. Although the actions performed were irrelevant to the categorization judgment, responses were significantly faster when actions were compatible with the visual context. This compatibility effect was largely driven by faster pinch responses when objects were presented in use-compatible, as compared with move-compatible, contexts. The present study is the first to highlight the influence of visual scene on stimulus-response compatibility effects during semantic object processing. These data support the hypothesis that action evocation during conceptual object processing is biased toward context-relevant actions.

Context and hand posture modulate the neural dynamics of tool-object perception.

Prior research has linked visual perception of tools with plausible motor strategies. Thus, observing a tool activates the putative action-stream, including the left posterior parietal cortex. Observing a hand functionally grasping a tool involves the inferior frontal cortex. However, tool-use movements are performed in a contextual and grasp specific manner, rather than relative isolation. Our prior behavioral data has demonstrated that the context of tool-use (by pairing the tool with different objects) and varying hand grasp postures of the tool can interact to modulate subjects' reaction times while evaluating tool-object content. Specifically, perceptual judgment was delayed in the evaluation of functional tool-object pairings (Correct context) when the tool was non-functionally (Manipulative) grasped. Here, we hypothesized that this behavioral interference seen with the Manipulative posture would be due to increased and extended left parietofrontal activity possibly underlying motor simulations when resolving action conflict due to this particular grasp at time scales relevant to the behavioral data. Further, we hypothesized that this neural effect will be restricted to the Correct tool-object context wherein action affordances are at a maximum. 64-channel electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded from 16 right-handed subjects while viewing images depicting three classes of tool-object contexts: functionally Correct (e.g. coffee pot-coffee mug), functionally Incorrect (e.g. coffee pot-marker) and Spatial (coffee pot-milk). The Spatial context pairs a tool and object that would not functionally match, but may commonly appear in the same scene. These three contexts were modified by hand interaction: No Hand, Static Hand near the tool, Functional Hand posture and Manipulative Hand posture. The Manipulative posture is convenient for relocating a tool but does not afford a functional engagement of the tool on the target object. Subjects were instructed to visually assess whether the pictures displayed correct tool-object associations. EEG data was analyzed in time-voltage and time-frequency domains. Overall, Static Hand, Functional and Manipulative postures cause early activation (100-400ms post image onset) of parietofrontal areas, to varying intensity in each context, when compared to the No Hand control condition. However, when context is Correct, only the Manipulative Posture significantly induces extended neural responses, predominantly over right parietal and right frontal areas [400-600ms post image onset]. Significant power increase was observed in the theta band [4-8Hz] over the right frontal area, [0-500ms]. In addition, when context is Spatial, Manipulative posture alone significantly induces extended neural responses, over bilateral parietofrontal and left motor areas [400-600ms]. Significant power decrease occurred primarily in beta bands [12-16, 20-25Hz] over the aforementioned brain areas [400-600ms]. Here, we demonstrate that the neural processing of tool-object perception is sensitive to several factors. While both Functional and Manipulative postures in Correct context engage predominantly an early left parietofrontal circuit, the Manipulative posture alone extends the neural response and transitions to a late right parietofrontal network. This suggests engagement of a right neural system to evaluate action affordances when hand posture does not support action (Manipulative). Additionally, when tool-use context is ambiguous (Spatial context), there is increased bilateral parietofrontal activation and, extended neural response for the Manipulative posture. These results point to the existence of other networks evaluating tool-object associations when motoric affordances are not readily apparent and underlie corresponding delayed perceptual judgment in our prior behavioral data wherein Manipulative postures had exclusively interfered in judging tool-object content.

One hand, two objects: emergence of affordance in contexts.

Studies on affordances typically focus on single objects. We investigated whether affordances are modulated by the context, defined by the relation between two objects and a hand. Participants were presented with pictures displaying two manipulable objects linked by a functional (knife-butter), a spatial (knife-coffee mug), or by no relation. They responded by pressing a key whether the objects were related or not. To determine if observing other's actions and understanding their goals would facilitate judgments, a hand was: (a) displayed near the objects; (b) grasping an object to use it; (c) grasping an object to manipulate/move it; (d) no hand was displayed. RTs were faster when objects were functionally rather than spatially related. Manipulation postures were the slowest in the functional context and functional postures were inhibited in the spatial context, probably due to mismatch between the inferred goal and the context. The absence of this interaction with foot responses instead of hands in Experiment 2 suggests that effects are due to motor simulation rather than to associations between context and hand-postures.

Manipulating objects and telling words: a study on concrete and abstract words acquisition.

Four experiments (E1-E2-E3-E4) investigated whether different acquisition modalities lead to the emergence of differences typically found between concrete and abstract words, as argued by the words as tools (WAT) proposal. To mimic the acquisition of concrete and abstract concepts, participants either manipulated novel objects or observed groups of objects interacting in novel ways (Training 1). In TEST 1 participants decided whether two elements belonged to the same category. Later they read the category labels (Training 2); labels could be accompanied by an explanation of their meaning. Then participants observed previously seen exemplars and other elements, and were asked which of them could be named with a given label (TEST 2). Across the experiments, it was more difficult to form abstract than concrete categories (TEST 1); even when adding labels, abstract words remained more difficult than concrete words (TEST 2). TEST 3 differed across the experiments. In E1 participants performed a feature production task. Crucially, the associations produced with the novel words reflected the pattern evoked by existing concrete and abstract words, as the first evoked more perceptual properties. In E2-E3-E4, TEST 3 consisted of a color verification task with manual/verbal (keyboard-microphone) responses. Results showed the microphone use to have an advantage over keyboard use for abstract words, especially in the explanation condition. This supports WAT: due to their acquisition modality, concrete words evoke more manual information; abstract words elicit more verbal information. This advantage was not present when linguistic information contrasted with perceptual one. Implications for theories and computational models of language grounding are discussed.