ArticleNeuroImage2018
Sensory and semantic activations evoked by action attributes of manipulable objects: Evidence from ERPs.
Article in NeuroImage, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subliminal Semantic Processing of Grasping Actions: Evidence from ERP Measures of Action-Verb Priming.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Embodied Cognition of Manipulative Actions: Subliminal Grasping Semantics Enhance Using-Action Recognition.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- No need to integrate action information during coarse semantic processing of man-made tools.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- The different effects of breaking an object at different time points.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- The dominant role of functional action representation in object recognition.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
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
Abstract
"Two route" theories of object-related action processing posit different temporal activation profiles of grasp-to-move actions (rapidly evoked based on object structure) versus skilled use actions (more slowly activated based on semantic knowledge). We capitalized on the exquisite temporal resolution and multidimensionality of Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) to directly test this hypothesis. Participants viewed manipulable objects (e.g., calculator) preceded by objects sharing either "grasp", "use", or no action attributes (e.g., bar of soap, keyboard, earring, respectively), as well as by action-unrelated but taxonomically-related objects (e.g., abacus); participants judged whether the two objects were related. The results showed more positive responses to "grasp-to-move" primed objects than "skilled use" primed objects or unprimed objects starting in the P1 (0-150 ms) time window and continuing onto the subsequent N1 and P2 components (150-300 ms), suggesting that only "grasp-to-move", but not "skilled use", actions may facilitate visual attention to object attributes. Furthermore, reliably reduced N400s (300-500 ms), an index of semantic processing, were observed to taxonomically primed and "skilled use" primed objects relative to unprimed objects, suggesting that "skilled use" action attributes are a component of distributed, multimodal semantic representations of objects. Together, our findings provide evidence supporting two-route theories by demonstrating that "grasp-to-move" and "skilled use" actions impact different aspects of object processing and highlight the relationship of "skilled use" information to other aspects of semantic memory.
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.