Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100965›Full record

ReviewPsychological research2022

Anticipating the magnitude of response outcomes can induce a potentiation effect for manipulable objects.

Ronan Guerineau, Loïc P Heurley, Nicolas Morgado, Denis Brouillet, Vincent Dru

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ronan GuerineauLaboratoire Sur Les Interactions Cognition, Action, Émotion (LICAE), Université Paris Nanterre, 200 avenue de La République, 92001, Nanterre Cedex, France. ronan.guerineau@wanadoo.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0583-3987
Loïc P HeurleyLaboratoire Sur Les Interactions Cognition, Action, Émotion (LICAE), Université Paris Nanterre, 200 avenue de La République, 92001, Nanterre Cedex, France. heurleyloic@yahoo.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8185-6083
Nicolas MorgadoLaboratoire Sur Les Interactions Cognition, Action, Émotion (LICAE), Université Paris Nanterre, 200 avenue de La République, 92001, Nanterre Cedex, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9345-915X
Denis BrouilletUniversité Montpellier 3, Montpellier, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0643-7345
Vincent DruLaboratoire Sur Les Interactions Cognition, Action, Émotion (LICAE), Université Paris Nanterre, 200 avenue de La République, 92001, Nanterre Cedex, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5152-0995

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Merely seeing large objects (e.g., apples) potentiates power grip whereas seeing small objects (e.g., strawberries) potentiates precision grip. According to the embodied cognition account, this potentiation effect reflects automatic access to object representation, including the grip usually associated with the object. Alternatively, this effect might be due to an overlap between magnitude codes used to code manipulable objects and magnitude codes used to code responses outcomes. In Experiment 1, participants saw objects usually grasped with a power or precision grip and had to press keys either with their forefinger or with their palm, each response generating a low or high tone (i.e., a large vs. small perceptual outcome, respectively). Tones were automatically delivered by headphones after the responses have been made in line with the ideomotor theories according to which voluntary actions are carried out due to the anticipation of their outcomes. Consistent with the magnitude-coding hypothesis, response times were shorter when the object and the anticipated response outcome were of the same magnitude than when they were not. These results were also consistent with a between-experiment analysis. In Experiments 2 and 3, we investigated to what extent removing or switching the outcomes during the experiment influence the potentiation effect. Our results support that the potentiation effect of grasping behaviours could be due to the compatibility between magnitude codes rather than to the involvement of motor representations. Our results also suggest a spontaneous use of the magnitude of response outcomes to code responses, as well as the flexibility of this coding processes when responses outcomes are altered.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceVisual PerceptionHandHand StrengthHumansReaction Time

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.