Trial reportExperimental brain research2013
Perceiving object dangerousness: an escape from pain?
Trial report in Experimental brain research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- You still intend to move: Inferred mental states imply motion to static body postures.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- The impact of attentional demand on the motor interference effect induced by dangerous stimuli.PeerJ · 2026Article
- You are fired! Exclusion words induce corticospinal modulations associated with vicarious pain.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2023Article
- Hand constraint reduces brain activity and affects the speed of verbal responses on semantic tasks.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Emotions Modulate Affordances-Related Motor Responses: A Priming Experiment.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- From Affordances to Abstract Words: The Flexibility of Sensorimotor Grounding.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Increasing Perceptual Salience Diminishes the Motor Interference Effect From Dangerous Objects.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- A sequential trial effect based on the motor interference effect from dangerous objects: An ERP study.Brain and behavior · 2018Article
- The Temporal Dynamics of Perceiving Other's Painful Actions.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
- Social Threat and Motor Resonance: When a Menacing Outgroup Delays Motor Response.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
- One step ahead: The perceived kinematics of others' actions are biased toward expected goals.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2016Article
- Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2015Article
- Keep away from danger: dangerous objects in dynamic and static situations.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A variety of studies showed that participants are facilitated when responding to graspable objects, while it has not been fully investigated what happens during interactions with graspable objects that are potentially dangerous. The present study focuses on the mechanisms underlying the processing of dangerous objects. In two experiments, we adopted a paradigm that has never been employed in this context, a bisection task. The line was flanked by objects belonging to different categories. We explored the sensitivity to the distinction between neutral and dangerous objects, by measuring whether the performance was biased toward a specific object category. In Experiment 1 both teenagers and adults bisected lines flanked by dangerous and neutral graspable objects, and they misperceived the line midpoint toward the neutral graspable object or, stated differently, on the opposite side of the dangerous graspable object. In Experiment 2 adults bisected lines flanked by dangerous and neutral objects matched on graspability (both graspable and ungraspable, Experiment 2a), or by graspable and ungraspable objects matched on dangerousness (both neutral and dangerous, Experiment 2b). Results confirmed the finding of Experiment 1, but also indicated that participants misperceived the line midpoint toward the ungraspable object when it was presented, being it dangerous or not. This evidence demonstrated sensitivity to object dangerousness maintained across lifespan. The emergence of aversive affordances evoked by dangerous graspable objects strenghtens the importance to consider graspability in the investigation of dangerous objects. Possible neural mechanisms involved in the processing of dangerous graspable objects are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23743714What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.