ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022
Look at what I can do: Object affordances guide visual attention while speakers describe potential actions.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. 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.
- Differential effects of free viewing and goal-directed search on visual attention: An eye-tracking study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Planning to be incremental: Scene descriptions reveal meaningful clustering in language production.Cognition · 2026Article
- CookAR: Affordance Augmentations in Wearable AR to Support Kitchen Tool Interactions for People with Low Vision.Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · 2024Article
- Article
- Speakers prioritise affordance-based object semantics in scene descriptions.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As we act on the world around us, our eyes seek out objects we plan to interact with. A growing body of evidence suggests that overt visual attention selects objects in the environment that could be interacted with, even when the task precludes physical interaction. In previous work, objects that afford grasping interactions influenced attention when static scenes depicted reachable spaces, and attention was otherwise better explained by general informativeness. Because grasping is but one of many object interactions, previous work may have downplayed the influence of object affordances on attention. The current study investigated the relationship between overt visual attention and object affordances versus broadly construed semantic information in scenes as speakers describe or memorize scenes. In addition to meaning and grasp maps-which capture informativeness and grasping object affordances in scenes, respectively-we introduce interact maps, which capture affordances more broadly. In a mixed-effects analysis of 5 eyetracking experiments, we found that meaning predicted fixated locations in a general description task and during scene memorization. Grasp maps marginally predicted fixated locations during action description for scenes that depicted reachable spaces only. Interact maps predicted fixated regions in description experiments alone. Our findings suggest observers allocate attention to scene regions that could be readily interacted with when talking about the scene, while general informativeness preferentially guides attention when the task does not encourage careful consideration of objects in the scene. The current study suggests that the influence of object affordances on visual attention in scenes is mediated by task demands.
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.