In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 1 as published. There was a missing reference of Kourtis and Vingerhoets (). The corrected Table 1 appears below.
Table 1
| Source, Study | N | Stimuli | Task | H-R compatibility effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bub and Masson () | ||||
| 2 | 54 | Beer mugs/Teapots | Color-judgement | Null |
| Cho and Proctor () | ||||
| 4 | 32 | Door-handles | Color/Orientation judgement | Null |
| Cho and Proctor () | ||||
| 1 | 40 | Door-handles | Shape-judgement | Null |
| 6 | 20 | Door-handles | Diagonal orientation judgement | Null |
| Kostov and Janyan () | ||||
| 1 | 37 | Frying pans, Jugs, Saucepans | Orientation judgement | Null |
| Loach et al. () | ||||
| 2 | 20 | Door-handles | Color-judgement | Null |
| Pellicano et al. () | ||||
| 1 | 20 | Passive Torches | Length judgement | Null |
| 2 | 20 | Passive Torches | Length judgement | Null |
| 3 | 20 | Passive Torches | Size judgement | Null |
| Saccone et al. () | ||||
| 2 | 25 | Mostly common elongated tools | Color-judgement | Null |
| Song et al. () | ||||
| 1 | 32 | Passive Torches | Orientation judgement | Null |
| Symes et al. () | ||||
| 3 | 33 | Mostly common elongated tools | Color-judgement | Null |
| Tipper et al. () | ||||
| 1 | 32 | Door-handles | Color-judgement | Null |
| Yu et al. () | ||||
| 2A | 30 | Mostly common elongated tools | Orientation judgement | Null |
| 2B | 30 | Mostly common elongated tools | Orientation judgement | Null |
| 3A | 30 | Mostly common elongated tools | Orientation judgement | Null |
| Cho and Proctor () | ||||
| 1 | 64 | Teapots | Color/Orientation judgement | Reversed |
| Cho and Proctor () | ||||
| 2 | 80 | Door-handles | Color-judgement | Reversed |
| 3 | 20 | Door-handles | Color-judgement | Reversed |
| 4 | 60 | Door-handles | Color-judgement | Reversed |
| 5 | 20 | Door-handles | Color-judgement | Reversed |
| Loach et al. () | ||||
| 1 | 20 | Door-handles | Texture judgement | Reversed |
| Kostov and Janyan () | ||||
| 2 | 58 | Frying pans, saucepans bowls/plates | Orientation judgement | Reversed |
| 3 | 51 | Frying pans, saucepans bowls/plates | Orientation judgement | Reversed |
| Kourtis and Vingerhoets () | ||||
| 29 | Mostly common elongated tools | S-R compatibility | Reversed | |
| Pellicano et al. () | ||||
| 1 | 20 | Torches | Color judgement | Reversed |
| Pellicano et al. () | ||||
| 2 | 20 | Active Torches | Length judgement | Reversed |
| 3 | 20 | Active Torches | Size judgement | Reversed |
| Proctor et al. () | ||||
| 1 | 20 | Frying pans | Orientation judgement | Reversed |
| Yu et al. () | ||||
| 1A | 32 | Mostly common elongated tools | Artifact/Natural | Reversed |
| 1B | 32 | Mostly common elongated tools | Artifact/Natural | Reversed |
| 1C | 32 | Mostly common elongated tools | Artifact/Natural | Reversed |
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 () of their neurophysiological results. A correction has been made to Introduction, Paragraph2:
Evidence in favor of the H-R compatibility effect was initially provided by Tucker and Ellis () 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., ; Saccone et al., ), stimuli (e.g., Pellicano et al., ; Pappas, ; Iani et al., ; Scerrati et al., , ), populations (e.g., Dekker and Mareschal, ), response devices (e.g., Bub and Masson, ), and response modes (e.g., Phillips and Ward, ; Cho and Proctor, ; Proctor et al., ; Bub et al., ; for a review see Proctor and Miles, ; for a recent meta-analysis see Azaad et al., ).
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.
Publisher's Note
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.
References
1
AzaadS.LahamS. M.ShieldsP. (2019). A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect. Cognition190, 105–127. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.028
2
BubD. N.MassonM. E. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: on the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. J. Exp. Psychol.36, 341–358. 10.1037/a0017606
3
BubD. N.MassonM. E.KumarR. (2018). Time course of motor affordances evoked by pictured objects and words. J. Exp. Psychol.44, 53–68. 10.1037/xhp0000431
4
ChoD. T.ProctorR. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part?J. Exp. Psychol.36, 853–861. 10.1037/a0019328
5
ChoD. T.ProctorR. W. (2011). Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. J. Exp. Psychol.37, 737–749. 10.1037/a0021934
6
ChoD. T.ProctorR. 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. 10.1007/s00426-012-0458-4
7
DekkerT. M.MareschalD. (2013). Object processing for action across childhood. Br. J. Dev. Psychol.31, 425–435. 10.1111/bjdp.12017
8
IaniC.FerraroL.MaioranaN. V.GalleseV.RubichiS. (2018). Do already grasped objects activate motor affordances?Psychol. Res. 83, 1363–1374. 10.1007/s00426-018-1004-9
9
KostovK.JanyanA. (2012). The role of attention in the affordance effect: can we afford to ignore it?Cogn. Process.13, 215–218. 10.1007/s10339-012-0452-1
10
KostovK.JanyanA. (2015). Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects. Cogn. Process.16, 287–291. 10.1007/s10339-015-0708-7
11
KourtisD.VingerhoetsG. (2015). Perceiving objects by their function: an EEG study on feature saliency and prehensile affordances. Biol. Psychol.110, 138–147. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.07.017
12
LoachD.FrischenA.BruceN.TsotsosJ. K. (2008). An attentional mechanism for selecting appropriate actions afforded by graspable objects. Psychol. Sci.19, 1253–1257. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02234.x
13
PappasZ. (2014). Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: Silhouettes and photographs. Cognition133, 716–728. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.018
14
PellicanoA.IaniC.BorghiA. M.RubichiS.NicolettiR. (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. 10.1080/17470218.2010.486903
15
PellicanoA.IaniC.MaioranaN. V.HoroufchinH.RubichiS.LugliL.et al. (2020). Correspondence effect driven by salient visual asymmetries in integral object stimuli. Psychol. Res.84, 728–742. 10.1007/s00426-018-1079-3
16
PhillipsJ. C.WardR. (2002). SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Vis. Cogn.9, 540–558. 10.1080/13506280143000575
17
ProctorR. W.LienM. C.ThompsonL. (2017). Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based correspondence effects?Cognition169, 91–101. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.009
18
ProctorR. W.MilesJ. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects?Psychol. Learn. Motiv.60, 227–266. 10.1016/b978-0-12-800090-8.00006-8
19
SacconeE. J.ChurchesO.NichollsM. E. (2016). Explicit spatial compatibility is not critical to the object handle effect. J. Exp. Psychol.42, 1643–1653. 10.1037/xhp0000258
20
ScerratiE.IaniC.LugliL.NicolettiR.RubichiS. (2020). Do my hands prime your hands?The hand-to-response correspondence effect. Acta Psychol.203:103012. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103012
21
ScerratiE.IaniC.LugliL.RubichiS. (2019). Is there an action potentiation effect with two-handles objects?Giornale italiano di Psicologia46, 987–996.
22
SongX.ChenJ.ProctorR. W. (2014). Correspondence effects with torches: grasping affordance or visual feature asymmetry?Q. J. Exp. Psychol.67, 665–675. 10.1080/17470218.2013.824996
23
SymesE.EllisR.TuckerM. (2005). Dissociating object-based and space-based affordances. Vis. Cogn.12, 1337–1361. 10.1080/13506280444000445
24
TipperS. P.PaulM. A.HayesA. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: the effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychon. Bull. Rev.13, 493–498. 10.3758/bf03193875
25
TuckerM.EllisR. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J. Exp. Psychol.24, 830–846. 10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830
26
YuA. B.AbramsR. A.ZacksJ. M. (2014). Limits on action priming by pictures of objects. J. Exp. Psychol.40, 1861–1873. 10.1037/a0037397
Summary
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
Volume
15 - 2021
Edited and reviewed by
Dimitrios Kourtis, University of Stirling, United Kingdom
Updates
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.
*Correspondence: Elisa Scerrati elisa.scerrati@unimore.it; elisa.scerrati@unibo.itorcid.org/0000-0002-4042-6140
This article was submitted to Cognitive Neuroscience, a section of the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Disclaimer
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.