ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
When affordances are not universal: The negative compatibility effect is modulated by task type and spatial association.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Humans prepare motor actions when perceiving objects that afford specific behaviors, highlighting the tight link between perception and action. For example, seeing a graspable object like a mug can trigger hand movements aligned to its handle - a phenomenon known as the object affordance effect. Vainio et al. (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64, 1094-1110, 2011) demonstrated this can produce a negative compatibility effect (NCE). This occurs when a spatially compatible prime object eliciting an affordance (e.g., a mug), but to be ignored, precedes a target requiring a spatial response. Given that task demands shape response execution (e.g., Schöpper & Frings, Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 86, 171-185, 2024), we hypothesized that the effect of affordance would vary accordingly. In Experiment 1, participants performed three tasks: arrow direction discrimination, shape discrimination, and circle localization. In all tasks, the time interval between the affordance object (a mug) and the onset of the target, as well as the compatibility between the mug and the response, varied. The arrow task replicated the NCE - responses were slower in compatible trials at short intervals. No compatibility effects were observed in the shape task. Notably, the localization task revealed a positive compatibility effect (PCE). The variation in compatibility effects suggests task-dependent affordances. Experiment 2 manipulated the target position relative to the fixation to investigate the PCE in the localization task and explore the differences in the compatibility effect. Although the PCE was not replicated, the NCE now also appeared for location tasks. Our results suggest that task constraints shape the compatibility effect, and distractor-induced affordances engage inhibitory mechanisms only when spatial features are relevant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41331214What 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.