Effects of grasp compatibility on long-term memory for objects☆
Section snippets
Participants
Forty psychology students of the Erasmus University Rotterdam participated in the experiment for course credits. Four participants were left-handed. Participant recruitment and testing followed the university ethical guidelines.
Materials
A set of 80 pictures was created. Forty were pictures of natural objects (e.g., apple, cherry). The other 40 were pictures of artificial objects (e.g., plunger, pencil). Within each category (natural or artificial), half of the objects afforded a power grasp (picked up
Participants
Forty psychology students participated in the experiment in exchange for course credit. Three participants were left-handed. None of the participants had participated in Experiment 1.
Materials and procedure
The stimuli were the words denoting the objects used in Experiment 1. We replaced three words because these were homonyms. The object names (and their replacements in parentheses) are listed in Appendix A. The procedure was identical to the procedure used in Experiment 1.
Semantic categorization
The same outlier criteria were used as in
Participants
Forty psychology students of the Erasmus University Rotterdam participated in the experiment for course credits. Three participants were left-handed. No participant had participated in the preceding experiments.
Materials
The materials and the set-up of the Grabbit in Experiment 3 were identical to those used in Experiment 1.
Procedure
The procedure of the categorization task was changed, and in particular the moment of motor-interference. Each categorization task trial started with the presentation of a fixation
Combined analysis of Experiment 1–3: recall data
To have a more powerful test of the grasp compatibility effect on memory, we performed an additional analysis in which we combined the recall data from Experiments 1 to 3. The 2 (compatibility) by 3 (Experiments) mixed ANOVA showed no difference in recall between compatible and incompatible objects, F(1, 117) = 0.41, p = 0.53, partial η2 = 0.00, (mean difference = 0.01, 95% CI [− 0.013, 0.025]), BF01 = 5.83. In addition, no significant interaction between compatibility and category on recall accuracy was
Experiment 4
We studied recognition memory in Experiment 4 because Van Dam et al. (2013) found an effect of motor action on long-term episodic memory for words in a single item recognition task. Possibly, a recognition memory task is more sensitive to motor information than free recall. In free recall, participants have to retrieve items from long-term memory while little information is presented to support retrieval. In a recognition task, items do not have to be generated from memory, but rather items are
General discussion
In three experiments, we investigated the influence of compatibility between the typical grasp size of an object and response grasp type on immediate semantic categorization and delayed free recall. In a fourth experiment we used a recognition memory task instead of free recall. We found that categorization responses were consistently faster in compatible than in incompatible conditions. In none of the experiments, however, did compatibility affect long-term memory. It is important to point out
References (84)
- et al.
Comprehension and semantic flexibility
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
(1974) - et al.
One hand, two objects: Emergence of affordance in contexts
Brain and Cognition
(2012) - et al.
On the nature of hand-action representations evoked during written sentence comprehension
Cognition
(2010) - et al.
Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words
Cognition
(2008) - et al.
Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study
Cognitive Brain Research
(2005) - et al.
Broken affordances, broken objects: A TMS study
Neuropsychologia
(2009) - et al.
Category specificity in normal episodic learning: Applications to object recognition and category-specific agnosia
Cognitive Psychology
(2004) - et al.
Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream
NeuroImage
(2000) - et al.
Neural representations of graspable objects: Are tools special?
Cognitive Brain Research
(2005) Discriminating preexperimental (semantic) from learned (episodic) associations: A speed-accuracy study
Cognitive Psychology
(1984)
Sensory factors in memory for subject-performed tasks
Acta Psychologica
Objects and their nouns in peripersonal space
Neuropsychologia
What the locus of brain lesion tells us about the nature of the cognitive defect underlying category-specific disorders: A review
Cortex
The role of motor affordances in immediate and long-term retention of objects
Acta Psychologica
Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object
Cognition
When motor congruency modulates immediate memory for objects
Acta Psychologica
The role of multisensory memories in unisensory object discrimination
Cognitive Brain Research
Effects of changed semantic context on recognition memory
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
Semantic memory and the brain: Structure and processes
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Kicking calculators: Contribution of embodied representations to sentence comprehension
Journal of Memory and Language
Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects?
Enactment versus conceptual encoding: Equivalent item memory but different source memory
Cortex
Benefits of multisensory learning
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Grasping spheres, not planets
Cognition
Single-trial multisensory memories affect later auditory and visual object discrimination
Cognition
Action priming by briefly presented objects
Acta Psychologica
Encoding specificity manipulations do affect retrieval from memory
Acta Psychologica
Evidence against a semantic-episodic distinction
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory
Object affordance influences instruction span
Experimental Brain Research
The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on long-term memory for word sequences
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Working memory: Looking back and looking forward
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Perceptual symbol systems
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Grounded cognition
Annual Review of Psychology
Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
The generation effect - A test between single-factor and multifactor theories
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition
Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space
Experimental Brain Research
Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns)
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
A motor similarity effect in object memory
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects
British Journal of Psychology
Item and order information in subject-performed tasks and experimenter-performed tasks
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Memory for actions: Item and relational information in categorized lists
Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung
Cited by (16)
Does multisensory study benefit memory for pictures and sounds?
2022, CognitionCitation Excerpt :Moreover, evidence suggests that conditions that facilitate initial processing of a stimulus may not always result in better memory. For example, Canits et al. (2018) found no benefit of congruent motor actions on later memory for pictures even though congruency did affect immediate motor responses during the study task. Thus, although it may seem reasonable to expect memory benefits for congruent conditions that show an effect during study, the relation between congruency during study and later memory performance may not be so straightforward.
No evidence for embodiment: The motor system is not needed to keep action verbs in working memory
2022, CortexCitation Excerpt :Dutriaux and colleagues recently showed that manipulable objects were better remembered with the hands free than when keeping the hands crossed behind the back, while this manipulation did not affect memory for non-manipulable objects; importantly, this effect persisted when words (instead of images) were shown (Dutriaux et al., 2019; Dutriaux & Gyselinck, 2016). However, several other studies have systematically failed to find support for motor affordances in working memory using a variety of experimental paradigms (Canits et al., 2018; Pecher, 2013; Pecher et al., 2013; Quak et al., 2014), leading to a mixed picture. In a critical review of studies on the role of motor simulations in working memory, Zeelenberg and Pecher (2016) note that many of the paradigms that have yielded results consistent with a functional role of motor simulations in working memory do not in fact provide strong evidence for this claim, because the paradigm itself emphasized actions (e.g., by showing grasping movements before the to-be-remembered objects).
Studying memory aging from an embodied point of view: Reflections on the contribution of aging suits
2023, Annee PsychologiqueDo graspable objects always leave a motor signature? A study on memory traces
2022, Experimental Brain Research
- ☆
We thank Christiaan Tieman for technical assistance and Chrystel Luijendijk and William Kiil for their assistance with Experiment 4.