Can activation of motor programs accelerate object detection in a visual search task?

Anufrieva, A. A., Gorbunova, E. S. (2022). Affordances as part of the object identification process in visual search. Rossiiskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 19 (2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2022.2.14 (In Russian)

Anufrieva, A. A., Sapronov, F. A., Gorbunova, E. S. (2024). The compatibility effect in a visual search task. In: I. Yu. Vladimirov, S. Yu. Korovkin (eds). Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii pamiati Dzh. S. Brunera “Psikhologiia poznaniia” (Yaroslavl', 1–3 dekabria 2023 g.) (pp. 27–30). Yaroslavl, Filigran’ Publ. (In Russian)

Azaad, S., Laham, S. M., Shields, P. (2019). A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect. Cognition, 190, 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.028

Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., Lin, T. (2013). Features of planned hand actions influence identification of graspable objects. Psychological Science, 24 (7), 1269–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472909

Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105 (38), 14325–14329. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.0803390105

Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., Parisi, D., Ellis, R., Cangelosi, A., Baldassarre, G. (2012). How affordances associated with a distractor object affect compatibility effects: A study with the computational model TRoPICALS. Psychological Research, 77 (1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0424-1

Cox, P. H., Kravitz, D. J., Mitroff, S. R. (2021). Great expectations: Minor differences in initial instructions have a major impact on visual search in the absence of feedback. Cognitive Research Principles and Implications, 6 (1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00286-1

Donkin, C., Nosofsky, R. M. (2012). The structure of short-term memory scanning: An investigation using response time distribution models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19 (3), 363–394. https://doi. org/10.3758/s13423-012-0236-8

Ellis, R., Tucker, M., Symes, E., Vainio, L. (2007). Does selecting one visual object from several require inhibition of the actions associated with nonselected objects? Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 33 (3), 670–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.670

Fleck, M. S., Samei, E., Mitroff, S. R. (2010). Generalized “satisfaction of search”: Adverse influences on dual-target search accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16 (1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018629

Gomez, M. A., Snow, J. C. (2017). Action properties of object images facilitate visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 43 (6), 1115–1124. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000390

Haddad, L., Wamain, Ya., Kalenine, S. (2023). Stimulus-response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77 (1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231161310

Kotov, A. A., Dagaev, N. I., Vlasova, E. F. (2017). Perception and action: representation of actions with objects. In: Selected sections of the psychology of learning: a collective monograph (pp. 139–161). Moscow, “Delo” RANEPA Press. (In Russian)

Leontiev, A. N. (2004). Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow, Smysl Publ. (In Russian)

Leuthold, H. (2010). The Simon effect in cognitive electrophysiology: A short review. Acta Psychologica, 136 (2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.001

Martin, A. (2015). GRAPES — Grounding representations in action, perception, and emotion systems: How object properties and categories are represented in the human brain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23 (4), 979–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0842-3

Moise, N. (2022). Getting a handle on meaning: Planned hand actions’ influence on the identification of handled objects: Master’s thesis. Victoria. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1828/14285 (accessed: 27.11.2025).

Ni, L., Liu, Y., Yu, W. (2019). The dominant role of functional action representation in object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 237 (2), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5426-9

Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y., Badets, A. (2017). What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.014

Pappas, Z. (2014). Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: Silhouettes and photographs. Cognition, 133 (3), 716–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.018

Pechenkova, E. V., Falikman, M. V. (2010). Perceptual task solving as an interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes of visual information processing. Teoreticheskaia i eksperimental’naia psikhologiia, 3 (3), 52–65. (In Russian)

Rowe, P., Haenschel, C., Kosilo, M., Yarrow, K. (2017). Objects rapidly prime the motor system when located near the dominant hand. Brain and Cognition, 113, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.11.005

Treisman, A. M., Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12 (1), 97–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5

Yamani, Yu., Ariga, A., Yamada, Yu. (2016). Object affordances potentiate responses but do not guide attentional prioritization. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 9, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2015.00074

Yang, H., Zelinsky, G. J. (2009). Visual search is guided to categorically-defined targets. Vision Research, 49 (16), 2095–2103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.05.017

Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Asymmetries in visual search: An introduction. Perception & Psychophysics, 63 (3), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194406

Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature Human Behaviour, 1 (3), 0058. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0058