ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
Mood Influences the Perception of the Sitting Affordance.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study tested the influence of mood on the perception of the sitting affordance in two experiments. The objective of Experiment 1 was to evaluate participants' perception of the sitting affordance, without mood induction. Forty-three participants assessed their maximum sitting height (SHmax) from different seat heights (perceptual SHmax) before performing the action (motor SHmax). They accurately perceived the sitting affordance, in body-scaled intrinsic units. Indeed, participants all perceived they could sit as long as the seat height did not exceed 82% (perceptual πc) of their total leg length (L), while the actual value of this intrinsic relationship was 83% (motor πc). In Experiment 2, forty participants were subjected to a mood induction procedure before performing the task employed in Experiment 1. Neutral participants accurately perceived the sitting affordance, as their perceptual πc was equivalent to their motor πc. However, both joyful and sad participants had their perceptual πc significantly lower than their motor πc. These differences between mood groups were not explained by a variation in maximal effective action capabilities. Indeed, participants had equivalent motor πc, whatever their mood. Two interpretations are offered to explain how joyful and sad moods could influence the accuracy of affordance perception. The first is based on their potential effect on organism's energy level. The second is related to the disruption of participants' attunement to optical variables relevant for action guidance and/or to perceptual-motor calibration.
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.