Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40528847›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Perceiving the affordance of interceptability for another.

Samruddhi Damle, Reinoud J Bootsma, Frank T J M Zaal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Samruddhi DamleDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Reinoud J BootsmaInstitut des Sciences du Mouvement, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, Marseille, France.
Frank T J M ZaalDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research has established that people can make accurate perceptual judgments regarding the affordance of interceptability for oneself. The present study aimed to explore whether people are also capable of perceiving interceptability for another person. Using a manual lateral interception paradigm, we examined whether a group of observers could make perceptual judgments about the affordance of interceptability for a particular individual (the "actor"). We additionally explored the effects of prior training and of partial visual occlusion on the perception of interceptability for the actor. Three groups of 12 observers each viewed the ball-and-paddle kinematics of the actor performing the interception task. Two groups received full vision, whereas one group received partially occluded vision of the screen. Two groups also received prior training on the interception task, whereas one group did not. All observers were required to make verbal judgments ("no"-calls) when they perceived a ball to be uninterceptable for the actor. The frequency and timings of the judgments of the observers turned out to be similar to those of the actor. Analogous task variables characterized the perceptual performance for the observers and actor alike, suggesting that observers were indeed capable of perceiving affordances for the actor. Lastly, we found that neither prior training, nor visual occlusion, had any significant impact on the observers' judgments. We concluded that individuals are capable of perceiving action possibilities for another person, in a comparable way as they would for themselves.

Indexed as

affordanceaffordance for anotherinterceptabilityinterceptionperception-action

Identifiers

PMID40528847
PMCPMC12171503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.