ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023
No need to integrate action information during coarse semantic processing of man-made tools.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Action representation of man-made tools consists of two subtypes: structural action representation concerning how to grasp an object, and functional action representation concerning the skilled use of an object. Compared to structural action representation, functional action representation plays the dominant role in fine-grained (i.e., basic level) object recognition. However, it remains unclear whether the two types of action representation are involved differently in the coarse semantic processing in which the object is recognized at a superordinate level (i.e., living/non-living). Here we conducted three experiments using the priming paradigm, in which video clips displaying structural and functional action hand gestures were used as prime stimuli and grayscale photos of man-made tools were used as target stimuli. Participants recognized the target objects at the basic level in Experiment 1 (i.e., naming task) and at the superordinate level in Experiments 2 and 3 (i.e., categorization task). We observed a significant priming effect for functional action prime-target pairs only in the naming task. In contrast, no priming effect was found in either the naming or the categorization task for the structural action prime-target pairs (Experiment 2), even when the categorization task was preceded by a preliminary action imitation of the prime gestures (Experiment 3). Our results suggest that only functional action information is retrieved during fine-grained object processing. In contrast, coarse semantic processing does not require the integration of either structural or functional action information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37221279What 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.