ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Perceiving the affordance of interceptability for another.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.