The effect of object orientation as a function of affordance on motor action priming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical property affordances (PPA's) are characteristics of objects that have been suggested to prime motor interactions with that object by encompassing action relevant features and orientations within their physical makeup (Ellis & Tucker, 2006). Previous work, employing stimulus-response paradigms has shown that simple reaction time (SRT) is facilitated when response effectors are aligned spatially with the presented PPA, but questions remain as to the degree to which these priming benefits are mediated by varying orientations of the same object. In this study, participants were presented images of a coloured 3-dimensional pole that varied in either vertical, horizontal or orthogonal orientation. Stimulus colour was used to define two mapping conditions (blue/right, yellow/left & blue/left, yellow/right) that cued participants as to hand of response. Apart from colour, the characteristics of the pole in all orientations was identical. SRT's were calculated as the time from stimulus onset to button depression. Results indicate significantly shorter SRT's when the right arm was aligned with the direction of the pole, such that it could be grasped in a way that was anatomically optimal, thereby mitigating energy expenditure and excessive pronation and supination of the hand. SRTs for all other pole orientations were not different from each other. These results suggest that affordance universality may be linked to laterality and that these laterality effects are particularly robust with lateral preference. Future directions of this research will use EMG to assess potential pre-motor activation time as a function of affordance orientation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".