↓ Skip to main content

Is there a Competition between Functional and Situational Affordances during Action Initiation with Everyday Tools?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Is there a Competition between Functional and Situational Affordances during Action Initiation with Everyday Tools?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kévin Roche, Hanna Chainay

Abstract

Most studies of human-tool interactions focus on the typical use of a tool (e.g., cutting in the case of a knife). However, little is known about situations requiring atypical tool use (e.g., using a knife to tighten a screw). The present study focused on a selection of atypical uses of everyday tools which might be in conflict with their typical use. Our objective was to study how tool function influences the selection of the relevant action. In Experiment 1, which involved visuomotor priming, two everyday tools (a knife and a screwdriver) and two neutral tools (two bars, with no strong functional affordance) were used as primes and targets. Participants had to use the target with the appropriate box (indicated by the color) that allowed to make an action. Longer initiation times were observed when the prime was an everyday tool, irrespective of the nature of the target. We therefore observed a conflict between functional and situational affordances. To investigate whether the priming effect is caused by the task-irrelevance of the prime, we asked the participants in Experiment 2 to perform an action associated with the prime. The results showed longer initiation times only when the prime and target were everyday tools, irrespective of their precise nature. This suggests that activation of the typical use of a tool might not be fully automatic but flexible depending on the situation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 48%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 40%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,705
of 31,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,833
of 316,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#397
of 612 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 612 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.