↓ Skip to main content

Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00351
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna M. Borghi, Lucia Riggio

Abstract

The mere observation of pictures or words referring to manipulable objects is sufficient to evoke their affordances since objects and their nouns elicit components of appropriate motor programs associated with object interaction. While nobody doubts that objects actually evoke motor information, the degree of automaticity of this activation has been recently disputed. Recent evidence has indeed revealed that affordances activation is flexibly modulated by the task and by the physical and social context. It is therefore crucial to understand whether these results challenge previous evidence showing that motor information is activated independently from the task. The context and the task can indeed act as an early or late filter. We will review recent data consistent with the notion that objects automatically elicit multiple affordances and that top-down processes select among them probably inhibiting motor information that is not consistent with behavior goals. We will therefore argue that automaticity and flexibility of affordances are not in conflict. We will also discuss how language can incorporate affordances showing similarities, but also differences, between the motor information elicited by vision and language. Finally we will show how the distinction between stable and variable affordances can accommodate all these effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 20%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 52 39%
Neuroscience 10 8%
Computer Science 8 6%
Philosophy 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 30 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,517,636
of 25,818,700 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,962
of 7,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,987
of 279,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#71
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,818,700 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.