ArticleExperimental brain research2021
A priming study on naming real versus pictures of tools.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of manual gestures in second language comprehension: a simultaneous interpreting experiment.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- The Treachery of Images: How Realism Influences Brain and Behavior.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a growing body of literature demonstrating the relationship between the activation of sensorimotor processes in object recognition. It is unclear, however, if these processes are influenced by the differences in how real (3D) tools and two-dimensional (2D) images of tools are processed by the brain. Here, we examined if these differences could influence the naming of tools. Participants were presented with a prime stimulus that was either a picture of a tool, or a real tool, followed by a target stimulus that was always a real tool. They were then required to name each tool as they appeared. The functional use action required by the target tool was either the same (i.e., squeegee-paint roller) or different (i.e. knife-whisk) to the prime. We found that the format in which the prime tool was presented (i.e., a picture or real tool) had no influence on the participants' response times to naming the target tool. Furthermore, participants were faster at naming target tools relative to prime tools when the exact same tool was presented as both the prime and target. There was no difference in response times to naming the target tool relative to the prime when they were different tools, regardless of whether the tools' functional actions were the same or different. We also found more errors in naming target tools relative to the primes when different tools had a different functional action compared to when the same tool was presented as both the prime and the target. Taken together, our results highlight that the functional actions associated with tools do not facilitate or interfere with the recognition of tools for the purposes of naming. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33394099What 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.