Corrigendum: Exploring the Role of Action Consequences in the Handle-Response Compatibility Effect
- 1Department of Education and Humanities, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
- 2Department of Philosophy and Communication, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- 3Department of Surgery, Medicine, Dentistry and Morphological Sciences With Interest in Transplant, Oncology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
- 4Center for Neuroscience and Neurotechnology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
by Scerrati, E., D'Ascenzo, S., Lugli, L., Iani, C., Rubichi, S., and Nicoletti, R. (2020). Front. Hum. Neurosci. 14:286. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00286
Table 1. Prior known tests of the Handle–Response (H–R) compatibility effect showing null and/or reversed effects.
In the original article, there was an error. The authors mistakenly reported as evidence a hypothetical interpretation offered by Kourtis and Vingerhoets (2015) of their neurophysiological results. A correction has been made to Introduction, Paragraph 2:
Evidence in favor of the H-R compatibility effect was initially provided by Tucker and Ellis (1998) who showed that judging the upright or inverted position of depicted graspable objects was influenced by the orientation of the object's handle. That is, responses were faster when the position of the handle and the responding hand were spatially aligned as compared to when they were not. This result was replicated across different tasks (e.g., Tipper et al., 2006; Saccone et al., 2016), stimuli (e.g., Pellicano et al., 2010; Pappas, 2014; Iani et al., 2018; Scerrati et al., 2019, 2020), populations (e.g., Dekker and Mareschal, 2013), response devices (e.g., Bub and Masson, 2010), and response modes (e.g., Phillips and Ward, 2002; Cho and Proctor, 2010; Proctor et al., 2017; Bub et al., 2018; for a review see Proctor and Miles, 2014; for a recent meta-analysis see Azaad et al., 2019).
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Cho, D. T., and 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. Psychol. Res. 77, 618–636. doi: 10.1007/s00426-012-0458-4
Kostov, K., and Janyan, A. (2015). Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects. Cogn. Process. 16, 287–291. doi: 10.1007/s10339-015-0708-7
Kourtis, D., and Vingerhoets, G. (2015). Perceiving objects by their function: an EEG study on feature saliency and prehensile affordances. Biol. Psychol. 110, 138–147. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.07.017
Loach, D., Frischen, A., Bruce, N., and Tsotsos, J. K. (2008). An attentional mechanism for selecting appropriate actions afforded by graspable objects. Psychol. Sci. 19, 1253–1257. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02234.x
Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., and Nicoletti, R. (2010). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: the effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63, 2190–2201. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.486903
Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Maiorana, N. V., Horoufchin, H., Rubichi, S., Lugli, L., et al. (2020). Correspondence effect driven by salient visual asymmetries in integral object stimuli. Psychol. Res. 84, 728–742. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1079-3
Phillips, J. C., and Ward, R. (2002). SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Vis. Cogn. 9, 540–558. doi: 10.1080/13506280143000575
Proctor, R. W., Lien, M. C., and Thompson, L. (2017). Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based correspondence effects? Cognition 169, 91–101. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.009
Proctor, R. W., and Miles, J. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects? Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 60, 227–266. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-800090-8.00006-8
Scerrati, E., Iani, C., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., and Rubichi, S. (2020). Do my hands prime your hands? The hand-to-response correspondence effect. Acta Psychol. 203:103012. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103012
Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., and Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 493–498. doi: 10.3758/bf03193875
Keywords: handle-response compatibility, response-effect compatibility, common coding of intention and action, ideomotor theory, affordance
Citation: Scerrati E, D'Ascenzo S, Lugli L, Iani C, Rubichi S and Nicoletti R (2021) Corrigendum: Exploring the Role of Action Consequences in the Handle-Response Compatibility Effect. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15:750105. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.750105
Received: 30 July 2021; Accepted: 03 August 2021;
Published: 15 September 2021.
Edited and reviewed by: Dimitrios Kourtis, University of Stirling, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2021 Scerrati, D'Ascenzo, Lugli, Iani, Rubichi and Nicoletti. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.