ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2013
Keep away from danger: dangerous objects in dynamic and static situations.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 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
- Effects of Olfactory Valence on the Neural and Behavioral Dynamics of Approach-Avoidance: An EEG Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- You are fired! Exclusion words induce corticospinal modulations associated with vicarious pain.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2023Article
- Emotions in motion: affective valence can influence compatibility effects with graspable objects.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Improper weapons are a neglected category of harmful objects.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- 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
- Increasing Perceptual Salience Diminishes the Motor Interference Effect From Dangerous Objects.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- The role of the action context in object affordance.Psychological research · 2019Article
- Approaching threat modulates visuotactile interactions in peripersonal space.Experimental brain research · 2016Article
- A Heavy Heart: The Association between Weight and Emotional Words.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
- Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2015Article
- Body, space, and pain.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2014Article
- Cortical processing of object affordances for self and others' action.Frontiers in psychology · 2014Review
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
Behavioral and neuroscience studies have shown that objects observation evokes specific affordances (i.e., action possibilities) and motor responses. Recent findings provide evidence that even dangerous objects can modulate the motor system evoking aversive affordances. This sounds intriguing since so far the majority of behavioral, brain imaging, and transcranial magnetic stimulation studies with painful and dangerous stimuli strictly concerned the domain of pain, with the exception of evidence suggesting sensitivity to objects' affordances when neutral objects are located in participants' peripersonal space. This study investigates whether the observation of a neutral or dangerous object in a static or dynamic situation differently influences motor responses, and the time-course of the dangerous objects' processing. In three experiments we manipulated: object dangerousness (neutral vs. dangerous); object category (artifact vs. natural); manual response typology (press vs. release a key); object presentation (Experiment 1: dynamic, Experiments 2 and 3: static); object movement direction (Experiment 1: away vs. toward the participant) or size (Experiments 2 and 3: big vs. normal vs. small). The task required participants to decide whether the object was an artifact or a natural object, by pressing or releasing one key. Results showed a facilitation for neutral over dangerous objects in the static situation, probably due to an affordance effect. Instead, in the dynamic condition responses were modulated by the object movement direction, with a dynamic affordance effect elicited by neutral objects and an escape-avoidance effect provoked by dangerous objects (neutral objects were processed faster when they moved toward-approached the participant, whereas dangerous objects were processed faster when they moved away from the participant). Moreover, static stimuli influenced the manual response typology. These data indicate the emergence of dynamic affordance and escaping-avoidance effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.