The object-based Correspondence effect (also called object-based Simon effect), is a special spatial Correspondence effect, which refers to the phenomenon that responses are faster and more accurate when a handle of the graspable object and the response position or the responding hand are consistent than inconsistent. Tucker and Ellis (1998) first found the object-based Correspondence effect, and attributed the effect to the functional affordance of handles. In other words, when participants watch the graspable object, they automatically activate the tendency to grasp the handle of the object with their corresponding hands. Therefore, when the responding hand which is automatically activated by the handle is consistent that required by the task, responses are faster. In addition to the functional affordance, many researchers have also used the spatial position coding account to explain this effect. The account held the view that the generation of the object-based Correspondence effect was related to the position of the asymmetric handle of the stimuli, which automatically activated the response of the ipsilateral position, leading to the object-based Correspondence effect (Cho & Proctor, 2010). It's uncertain that the generation of object-based Correspondence effect is due to affordance coding or spatial coding hypothesis.
In the present study, three experiments were conducted to investigate the generation mechanism of the object-based Correspondence effect. The stimulus materials were the silhouettes and photographs of the frying pans. In Experiment 1 the frying pan was located at the center of the screen, participants were asked to judge the stimulus to be upright or inverted, and responded with the responding hand. The aim of it was to examine whether the silhouettes and photographs of the frying pan would exist the object-based Correspondence effect without significant spatial position. In Experiment 2, the base of the frying pan was placed at the center of the screen, which made the left and right position of the handle more significant, and continue to examine whether the object-based Correspondence effect would appear when there existed the significant spatial coding. In Experiment 3, a crossed-hand response paradigm was adopted to separate response position from responding hand coding, in other words, participants pressed the right key with the left hand and the left key with the right hand, and to further explore the generation mechanism of the object-based Correspondence effect.
The results suggested that there existed the object-based Correspondence effect in Experiment 1 when spatial location of the stimulus was not significant for silhouette stimuli, but not photograph stimuli. In Experiment 2 when the spatial position of the stimuli was more significant, silhouette and photograph stimuli both showed the Correspondence effect and the effect size was similar. The RT combined analysis of Experiment 1 and 2 suggested that the Correspondence effect size of Experimental 2 was larger than Experiment 1 for silhouette stimuli, and similar for photograph stimuli. In Experiment 3 when the hands were crossed there was Correspondence effect between the handle and the response position for both silhouette and photograph stimuli, but not the Correspondence effect between the handle and the responding hand. The combined analysis with the Experiment 2 suggested that the effect size of Experiment 3 was smaller than Experiment 2 for both silhouette and photograph stimuli.
Based on these results, it is concluded that the spatial coding hypothesis plays an important role in the generation of the object-based Correspondence effect during a two key-pressing selection task, the affordance coding or other explanations are much smaller than that.
Ambrosecchia, M., Marino, B. F. M., Gawryszewski, L. G., & Riggio, L . (2015). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 283.
Ansorge, U., & Wuhr, P . (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 365-377.
Azaad, S., Laham, S.M., & Shields, P . (2019). A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect. Cognition, 190, 105-127.
Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Kumar, R . (2018). Time course of motor affordances evoked by pictured objects and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 53-68.
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W . (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 853-861.
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W . (2011). Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 737-749.
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W . (2013). Object-based Correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface- property judgments with keypress responses: Evidence for a basis in spatial coding. Psychological Research, 77(5), 618-636.
Dagaev, N., Shtyrov, Y., & Myachykov, A . (2017). The role of executive control in the activation of manual affordances. Psychological Research, 81(6), 1110-1124.
de Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E . (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response Correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 731-750.
Ellis, R., & Tucker, M . (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 451-471.
Fan, R. J., Li, Q., & Zhao, J . (2015). Research on the consistency of human interface design in cockpit of commercial aircraft. Opportunities for Standardization Reform and Development--The 12th China Standardization Forum.
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M . (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 199-210.
Gibson, J. J . (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds). Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp.67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J . (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Gibson, J. J . (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Original work published 1979)
Lien, M. C., Gray, D., Jardin, E., & Proctor, R. W . (2014). Further evidence that object-based Correspondence effects are primarily modulated by object location not by grasping affordance. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 679-698.
Ma, X . (2013). Consistency research of adaptive interface of intelligent mobile terminal (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.
Oldfield, R. C . (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113.
Pappas, Z . (2014). Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: Silhouettes and photographs. Cognition, 133(3), 716-728.
Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R . (2010). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: The effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(11), 2190-2201.
Pellicano, A., Koch, I., & Binkofski, F . (2017). Location- coding account versus affordance-activation account in handle-to-hand Correspondence effects: Evidence of Simon- like effects based on the coding of action direction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(9), 1647-1666.
Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R . (2002). S-R Correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9(4-5), 540-558.
Proctor, R. W., Lien, M. C., & Thompson, L . (2017). Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based Correspondence effects? Cognition, 169, 91-101.
Proctor, R. W., Vu, K. P. L., & Nicoletti, R . (2003). Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect? Perception and Psychophysics, 65(8), 1318-1329.
Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Pelosi, A., & Umiltà, C . (2004). Right-left prevalence effect with horizontal and vertical effectors. Perception and Psychophysics, 66(2), 255-263.
Rubichi, S., Vu, K. P. L., Nicoletti, R., & Proctor, R. W . (2006). Spatial coding in two dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 201-216.
Saccone, E. J., Churches, O., & Nicholls, M. E. R . (2016). Explicit spatial compatibility is not critical to the object handle effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(10), 1643-1653.
Song, X., Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W . (2014). Correspondence effects with torches: Grasping affordance or visual feature asymmetry? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(4), 665-675.
Styrkowiec, P. P., Nowik, A. M., Kroliczak, G . (2019). The neural underpinnings of haptically guided functional grasping of tools: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 194, 149-162.
Symes, E., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M . (2005). Dissociating object- based and space-based affordances. Visual Cognition, 12(7), 1337-1361.
Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E . (2006). Vision-for- action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 493-498.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R . (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830-846.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R . (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116(2), 185-203.
Vainio, L., Ellis, R., Tucker, M., & Symes, E . (2007). Local and global affordances and manual planning. Experimental Brain Research, 179(4), 583-594.
Warren, W. H . (1988). Action modes and laws of control for the visual guidance of action. Advances in Psychology, 50, 339-379.
Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E . (2007). Response coding in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 71(4), 401-410.
Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W . (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119(2), 272-303.