Abstract
Response: No need to match: a comment on Bach, Nicholson, and Hudson's "Affordance-Matching Hypothesis".
Highlights
We are grateful for Uithol and Maranesi’s (2014) insightful comments on our article “The affordance-matching hypothesis: How objects guide action understanding and prediction” (Bach et al, 2014)
We proposed that action understanding draws heavily on object information
This knowledge can make a major contribution to action observation, allowing observers to infer the goals someone wants to achieve with an object and to predict the actions that this person would need to carry out to achieve these goals
Summary
We are grateful for Uithol and Maranesi’s (2014) insightful comments on our article “The affordance-matching hypothesis: How objects guide action understanding and prediction” (Bach et al, 2014). They nicely complement the wealth of behavioral evidence that reveal that observers extract object affordances for other people, even outside their own peripersonal space (for a review, see Creem-Regehr et al, 2013), and that mental simulation of hand-object interactions shows lateralized motor activity as when performing such manipulations (e.g., when Borghi and Scorolli, 2009; Marino et al, 2012).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
