ArticleeLife2024
Body size as a metric for the affordable world.
Article in eLife, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integration of cognitive tasks into artificial general intelligence test for large models.iScience · 2024Review
- Body size as a metric for the affordable world.eLife · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The physical body of an organism serves as a vital interface for interactions with its environment. Here, we investigated the impact of human body size on the perception of action possibilities (affordances) offered by the environment. We found that the body size delineated a distinct boundary on affordances, dividing objects of continuous real-world sizes into two discrete categories with each affording distinct action sets. Additionally, the boundary shifted with imagined body sizes, suggesting a causal link between body size and affordance perception. Intriguingly, ChatGPT, a large language model lacking physical embodiment, exhibited a modest yet comparable affordance boundary at the scale of human body size, suggesting the boundary is not exclusively derived from organism-environment interactions. A subsequent fMRI experiment offered preliminary evidence of affordance processing exclusively for objects within the body size range, but not for those beyond. This suggests that only objects capable of being manipulated are the objects capable of offering affordance in the eyes of an organism. In summary, our study suggests a novel definition of object-ness in an affordance-based context, advocating the concept of embodied cognition in understanding the emergence of intelligence constrained by an organism's physical attributes.
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.