Abstract

Existing research has indicated that dangerous objects may conflict with an individual’s prepared motor actions and thus slow responses. This phenomenon is called the motor interference effect from dangerous objects. However, its origin remains arguable. The current study aimed to preclude an alternative origin and to investigate whether the efficiency of processing a prepared response toward a dangerous object could benefit from increasing the perceptual salience of the object by painting the object red. The design used a shape categorization task to emphasize the dangerous elements of target objects and manipulated target color (gray versus red), target dangerousness (safe versus dangerous) and prime-target congruency (congruent versus incongruent). The null effect of N2 amplitudes between the dangerous and safe conditions precluded the alternative origin and suggested that the motor interference effect did not originate from response inhibition. Furthermore, the results indicated a modulation effect of the motor interference effect in different colors. The classic motor interference effect was observed in the gray target condition, but it diminished in the red target condition. The underlying cognitive processes were reflected in ERPs. More positive P2 and frontal P3 amplitudes were identified in the red target condition than in the gray target condition, which indicated that deeper feature detection was assigned to and more attentional resources were automatically recruited for the red targets than for the gray targets. Analysis of the parietal P3 amplitudes identified a similar result pattern as the mean RTs. A more positive P3 amplitude was identified in the dangerous condition than in the safe condition when the targets were painted gray. In contrast, the P3 amplitudes were identical between the dangerous condition and the safe condition when the targets were painted red. The results indicated that the increased attentional resources facilitated the evaluation of red target dangerousness and thus accelerated reactions to the red dangerous targets; the reaction speeds to those targets were close to those for the reaction speeds to the red safe targets. Detailed processes that underline these components are discussed.

Highlights

  • In human life, we constantly interact with objects

  • The results indicated a motor interference effect from dangerous objects, suggesting an aversive affordance that dangerous objects may conflict with an individual’s prepared motor actions and slow responses

  • Subsequent paired t-tests indicated that the mean RTs for the dangerous condition (402 ± 62 ms) were longer than those for the safe condition [398 ± 59 ms; t(21) = 2.31, p = 0.03, Cohen’s d = 0.48] in the gray color condition

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We constantly interact with objects. We can touch or grasp objects voluntarily, but objects imply potential action information that might evoke motor responses (called “affordance,” Gibson, 1979). Key-press responses in Go trials were slower if video clips depicted a scene in which a needle contacted a hand than if they depicted a scene in which a cotton bud contacted a hand (Morrison et al, 2007), suggesting an aversive affordance of dangerous objects In line with these studies, Anelli et al (2012) investigated empathy mechanisms with a motor priming paradigm in which a hand prime and a dangerous object were successively presented. The results identified faster responses in real hand-grasping conditions than in robot hand and real static hand conditions; this suggested that a real grasping hand prime may influence subsequent object responses when it is in a position of potential interaction with target objects This paradigm is highly significant because it allows the investigation of how individuals control their prepared motor responses when facing an emergent dangerous object. Further investigating the neural mechanisms underlying the paradigm is important and might help reduce the working accident rate

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call