ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024
Grasping affordance judgments depend on the object emotional value.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The concept of affordance refers to the opportunities for action provided by the environment, often conveyed through visual information. It has been applied to explain visuomotor processing and movement planning. As emotion modulates both visual perception and the motor system, it is reasonable to ask whether emotion can influence affordance judgments. If present, this relationship can have important ontological implications for affordances. Thus, we investigated whether the emotional value of manipulable objects affected the judgment of the appropriate grasping that could be used to interact with them (i.e., their affordance). Methods: Volunteers were instructed to use a numerical scale to report their judgment on how an observed object should be grasped. We compared these judgments across emotional categories of objects (pleasant, unpleasant and neutral), while also considering the expected effect of object size. Results: We found that unpleasant objects were rated as more appropriately graspable by a precision grip than pleasant and neutral objects. Simultaneously, smaller object size also favored this judgment. This effect was seen in all emotional categories examined in equal magnitude. Discussion: Our findings suggest that the emotional value of objects modulates affordance judgments in a way that favors careful manipulation and minimal physical contact with aversive stimuli. Finally, we discuss how this affective aspect of our experience of objects overlaps with what affordances are conceptualized to be, calling for further reexamination of the relationship between affordances and emotions.
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.