Abstract
Post-Gibson attempts to set out a definition of affordance generally agree that this notion can be understood as a property of the environment with salience for an organism’s behavior. According to this view, some scholars advocate the idea that affordances are dispositional properties of physical objects that, given suitable circumstances, necessarily actualize related actions. This paper aims at assessing this statement in light of a theory of affordance perception. After years of discontinuity between strands of empirical and theoretical research, the time is ripe for addressing the question of whether the dispositional interpretation of affordance is in accordance with some recent evidence from cognitive science and neuroscience. Following this line, I clarify that there are some cases of affordance-related effects that neither require the actualization of an action, nor the presence of an action-related property bearer in the environment, and that the identification of affordance with physical properties provides only a partial explanation of the wide range of affordance-related effects. Accordingly, I argue in favor of a more general account of affordance perception based on the ability to directly detect perceptual patterns in the environment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It should be noted that my approach is not intended as an exhaustive account of Gibson’s original conception.
Gibson traces the origin of the concept of affordance back to the notion of “demand character” introduced by Kurt Koffka (1935) within the framework of Gestalt Theory.
This is the simplified version of Lewis’s (reformed) conditional analysis (Lewis 1997).
This result is in contrast with Tucker and Ellis (2001), according to whom affordance-related compatibility effects are not dependent on the object being presented within the actual reaching space of the observer. The reason is easily explained. The difference is due to Tucker and Ellis’s experimental settings, in which objects were always presented behind a plastic LCD screen that inevitably biased any attempt to modulate their reachability by varying the spatial distance between the target and the observer.
This experiment confirms the results obtained by Costantini and Sinigaglia (2011) with neurobiological data.
It could be insightful to see the notions of direct perception in light of the distinction between the dorsal and the ventral pathway of perception (Jacob and Jeannerod 2003; Rizzolatti and Matelli 2003; Borra et al. 2008). For an interesting discussion on this and related topics, see Norman (2002), Garbarini and Adenzato (2004), and Young (2006).
References
Bird, A. (2012). Dispositional Expressions. In: G. Russel, D. Graff Fara (eds) Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Evanston: Routledge
Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory and Cognition, 32, 863–873.
Borra, E., Belmalih, A., Calzavara, R., Gerbella, M., Murata, A., Rozzi, S., & Luppino, G. (2008). Cortical Connections of the Macaque Anterior Intraparietal (AIP) Area. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 1094–1111.
Buccino, G. S., Cattaneo, L., Rodà, F., & Riggio, L. (2009). Broken affordances, broken objects: a TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 47, 3074–3078.
Cardellicchio, P., Sinigaglia, C., & Costantini, M. (2011). The space of affordances: a TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1369–1372.
Carello, C., Thuot, S., Anderson, K. L., & Turvey, M. T. (1999). Perceiving the sweet spot. Perception, 28(3), 307–320.
Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478–484.
Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordance. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press
Costantini, M., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). Grasping affordance: a window onto social cognition. In A. Seeman (Ed.), Joint attention: new developments (pp. 431–470). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Tieri, G., Sinigaglia, C., & Committeri, G. (2010). Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordance in space. Experimental Brain Research, 207, 95–103.
Darwin, C. (1985). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: Penguin.
Derbyshire, N., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2006). The potentiation of two components of the reach-to-grasp action during object categorisation in visual memory. Acta Psychologica, 122, 78–94.
Di Pellegrino, G., Rafal, R., & Tipper, S. (2005). Implicitly evoked actions modulate visual selection: evidence from parietal extinction. Current Biology, 15, 1469–1472.
Ellis, R., & Turker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471.
Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1981). How direct is visual perception? some reflections on gibson’s ecological approach. Cognition, 9, 139–196.
Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 197–203.
Gallagher, S. (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 535–543.
Gallagher, S. (2011). Aesthetics and kinaesthetics. In H. Bredekamp and J. Krois (eds.). Sehen und Handeln. 99–113.
Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). What is so special with embodied simulation. Trends in Cognitive Science, 15(11), 512–519.
Garbarini, F., & Adenzato, M. (2004). At the root of embodied cognition: cognitive science meets neurophysiology. Brain and Cognition, 56, 100–106.
Gibson, J. (1967). New Reasons for realism. Synthese, 17(2), 162–172.
Gibson, J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Grafton, S., Fadiga, L., Arbib, M., & Rizzolatti, G. (1997). Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. NeuroImage, 6, 231–236.
Grezes, J., & Decety, J. (2002). Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 212–222.
Grezes, J., Tucker, M., Armony, J., Ellis, R., & Passingham, R. E. (2003). Objects automatically potentiate action: an fMRI study of implicit processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 2735–2740.
Handy, T. C., Grafton, S. T., Shroff, N. M., Ketay, S., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2003). Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 421–427.
Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2001a). Detection by action: neurobiological evidence for action-defined template in search. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 84–89.
Humphreys, G., & Riddoch, M. (2001b). Knowing what you need but not what you want: affordances and action-defined templates in neglect. Behavioural Neurology, 13, 75–87.
Jacob, P., Jeannerod, M. (2003). Ways of Seeing: The Scope and Limits of Visual Cognition. London: Oxford University Press.
Jacobs, D. M., Runeson, S., & Michaels, C. F. (2001). Learning to perceive the relative mass of colliding balls in globally and locally constrained task ecologies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1019–1038.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Lund Humphries.
Lewis, D. (1997). Finkish dispositions. The Philosophical Quarterly, 47(187), 143–158.
Mark, L. S. (1987). Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: a study of sitting and stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 361–370.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: Freeman.
Mayr, E. (2002). What evolution is. London: Phoenix.
McBride, J., Summer, P., & Husain, M. (2011). Conflict in object affordance revealed by grip force. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 13–24.
Michaels, C. F., & Carello, C. (1981). Direct perception. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Murata, A., Gallese, V., Luppino, G., Kaseda, M., & Sakata, H. (2000). Selectivity for the shape, size and orientation of objects in the hand-manipulation-related neurons in the anterior intraparietal (AIP) area of the macaque. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83, 2580–2601.
Murata, A., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Raos, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1997). Object representation in the ventral premotor cortex (area F5) of the monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 78, 2226–2230.
Nanay, B. (2011). Perceiving pictures. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 461–480.
Norman, J. (2002). Two visual systems and two theories of perception: an attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 73–144.
Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2010). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: the effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(11), 2190–2201.
Petit, S. L., Pegna, A. J., & Harris, M. I. (2006). Automatic motor cortex activation for natural as compared to awkward grips of a manipulable object. Experimental Brain Research, 168, 120–130.
Proverbio, M. A., Adorni, R., & D’Aniello, G. E. (2011). 250 ms to code for action affordance during observation of manipulable objects. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2711–2719.
Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G., Edwards, S., Baker, T., & Willson, K. (2003). Seeing the action: neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6(1), 82–90.
Riggio, L., Iani, C., Gherri, E., Benatti, F., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2008). The role of attention in the occurrence of the affordance effect. Acta Psychologica, 127(2), 449–458.
Rizzolatti, G., & Matelli, M. (2003). Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: anatomy and functions. Experimental Brain Research, 153, 146–157.
Rizzolatti, G., Camarda, R., Fogassi, L., Gentilucci, M., Luppino, G., & Matelli, M. (1988). Functional organization of inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey. II. Area F5 and the control of distal movements. Experimental Brain Research, 71, 491–507.
Rizzolatti, G., & Luppino, G. (2001). The cortical motor system. Neuron, 31, 889–901.
Roberts, K. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2011). Action-related objects influence the distribution of visuospatial attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(4), 669–688.
Roberts, K. L., & Humpreys, G. W. (2011). Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly presented objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 597–612.
Sakata, H., Taira, M., Murata, A., & Mine, S. (1995). Neural mechanisms of visual guidance of hand action in the parietal cortex of the monkey. Cerebral Cortex, 5, 429–438.
Scarantino, A. (2003). Affordance explained. Philosophy of Science, 70, 949–961.
Shaw, R. E., Turvey, M., & Mace, W. M. (1982). Ecological Psycology. The consequence of a commitment to realism. In W. Weimer & D. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes (pp. 159–226). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Shikata, E., Hamzei, F., Glauche, V., Koch, M., Weiller, C., Binkofski, F., & Büchel, C. (2003). Functional properties and interaction of the anterior and posterior intraparietal areas in humans. European Journal of Neuoroscience, 17, 1105–1110.
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.
Symes, E., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2005). Dissociating object-based and space-based affordance. Visual Cognition, 12(7), 1337–1361.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8, 769–800.
Turvey, M. (1992). Affordance and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4(3), 173–187.
Turvey, M., Shockley, K., & Carello, C. (1999). Affordance, proper function, and the physical basis of perceived heaviness. Cognition, 73, B17–B26.
Turvey, M. T., Shaw, R. E., Reed, E. S., & Mace, W. M. (1981). Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: in reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981). Cognition, 9, 237–304.
Ullman, S. (1980). Against direct perception. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 373–415.
Vainio, L., Hammaréén, L., Hausen, M., Rekolainen, E., & Riskilää, S. (2011). Motor inhibition associated with the affordance of briefly displayed objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 1094–1110.
Verhoef, B. E., Vogels, R., & Janssen, P. (2010). Contribution of inferior temporal and posterior parietal activity to three-dimensional shape perception. Current Biology, 20, 909–913.
von Helmholtz, H. (1867). Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik [Handbook of Physiological Optics or Treatise on Physiological Optics]. Leipzig: Leopold Voss.
Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 683–703.
Withagen, R., & Chemero, A. (2012). Affordances and classification: on the significance of a sidebar in James Gibson’s last book. Philosophical Psychology, 25(4), 521–537.
Withagen, R., & Michaels, C. F. (2005). The role of feedback information for calibrationcand attunement in perceiving length by dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1379–1390.
Young, G. (2006). Are different affordances subserved by different neural pathways? Brain and Cognition, 62, 134–142.
Acknowledgments
I thank Corrado Sinigaglia, Marco Fenici, Luca Casartelli, Chiara Brozzo and Anna Boncompagni for their comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zipoli Caiani, S. Extending the notion of affordance. Phenom Cogn Sci 13, 275–293 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-013-9295-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-013-9295-1