Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Affordances, context and sociality

  • S.I.: Between Vision and Action
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Affordances, i.e. the opportunity of actions offered by the environment, are one of the central research topics for the theoretical perspectives that view cognition as emerging from the interaction between the environment and the body. Being at the bridge between perception and action, affordances help to question a dichotomous view of perception and action. While Gibson’s view of affordances is mainly externalist, many contemporary approaches define affordances (and micro-affordances) as the product of long-term visuomotor associations in the brain. These studies have emphasized the fact that affordances are activated automatically, independently from the context and the previous intention to act: for example, affordances related to objects’ size would emerge even if the task does not require focusing on size. This emphasis on the automaticity of affordances has led to overlook their flexibility and contextual-dependency. In this contribution I will outline and discuss recent perspectives and evidence that reveal the flexibility and context-dependency of affordances, clarifying how they are modulated by the physical, cultural and social context. I will focus specifically on social affordances, i.e. on how perception of affordances might be influenced by the presence of multiple actors having different goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambrosini, E., Scorolli, C., Borghi, A. M., & Costantini, M. (2012). Which body for embodied cognition? Affordance and language within actual and perceived reaching space. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1551–1557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anelli, F., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2012). Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(4), 1627–1639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., Bolzani, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2013a). Keep away from danger: Dangerous objects in dynamic and static situations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anelli, F., Ranzini, M., Nicoletti, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2013b). Perceiving object dangerousness: An escape from pain? Experimental Brain Research, 228(4), 457–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becchio, C., Sartori, L., Bulgheroni, M., & Castiello, U. (2008a). The case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: A kinematic study on social intention. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 557–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becchio, C., Sartori, L., Bulgheroni, M., & Castiello, U. (2008b). Both your intention and mine are reflected in the kinematics of my reach-to-grasp movement. Cognition, 106(2), 894–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becchio, C., Sartori, L., & Castiello, U. (2010). Toward you: The social side of actions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 183–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binkofski, F., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2013). Two action systems in the human brain. Brain and Language, 127(2), 222–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørgen, K. (2016). Physical activity in light of affordances in outdoor environments: Qualitative observation studies of 3–5 years olds in kindergarten. Springerplus, 5, 950. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2565-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloesch, E. K., Davoli, C. C., Roth, N., Brockmole, J. R., & Abrams, R. A. (2012). Watch this! Observed tool use affects perceived distance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(2), 177–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., Bonfiglioli, C., Lugli, L., Ricciardelli, P., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2007). Are visual stimuli sufficient to evoke motor information? Studies with hand primes. Neuroscience Letters, 411(1), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., & Caruana, F. (2015). Embodiment theory. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 7, pp. 420–426). Oxford: Elsevier. ISBN 9780080970868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., Flumini, A., Natraj, N., & Wheaton, L. A. (2012). One hand, two objects: Emergence of affordance in contexts. Brain and Cognition, 80(1), 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2009). Sentence comprehension and simulation of object temporary, canonical and stable affordances. Brain Research, 1253, 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., & Riggio, L. (2015). Stable and variable affordances are both automatic and flexible. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, R. J., Baldwin, D. A., & Ashburn, L. A. (2002). Evidence for motionese: Modifications in mothers’ infant-directed action. Developmental Science, 5, 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, R. J., & Shallcross, W. L. (2008). Infants prefer motionese to adult-directed action. Developmental Science, 11(6), 853–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruineberg, J., Chemero, A., & Rietveld, E. (2018). General ecological information supports engagement with affordances for ‘higher’cognition. Synthese, 1–21.

  • Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Cree, G. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106, 27–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buccino, G., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Rodà, F., & Riggio, L. (2009). Broken affordances, broken objects: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 47(14), 3074–3078.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxbaum, L. J. (2017). Learning, remembering, and predicting how to use tools: Distributed neurocognitive mechanisms—Comment on Osiurak and Badets (2016).

  • Buxbaum, L. J., & Kalénine, S. (2010). Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191(1), 201–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Candidi, M., Curioni, A., Donnarumma, F., Sacheli, L. M., & Pezzulo, G. (2015). Interactional leader–follower sensorimotor communication strategies during repetitive joint actions. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 12(110), 20150644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Candidi, M., Sacheli, L. M., Era, V., Canzano, L., Tieri, G., & Aglioti, S. M. (2017). Come together: Human–avatar on-line interactions boost joint-action performance in apraxic patients. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(11), 1793–1802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardellicchio, P., Sinigaglia, C., & Costantini, M. (2012). Grasping affordances with the other’s hand: A TMS study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(4), 455–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casasanto, D. (2008). Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning, 58(s1), 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemero, A. (2001). What we perceive when we perceive affordances: Commentary on Michaels (2000) “Information, Perception, and Action”. Ecological Psychology, 13(2), 111–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: A Bradford Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinellato, E., & del Pobil, A. P. (2016). The visual neuroscience of robotic grasping. Achieving sensorimotor skills through dorsal–ventral stream integration. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cisek, P. (2007). Cortical mechanisms of action selection: The affordance competition hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 362(1485), 1585–1599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., & Uzzell, D. L. (2006). 11 The socio-environmental affordances of adolescents’ environments. In Children and their environments: Learning, using and designing spaces (Vol. 176).

  • Coello, Y., Bourgeois, J., & Iachini, T. (2012). Embodied perception of reachable space: How do we manage threatening objects? Cognitive Processing, 13(1), 131–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constable, M. D., Bayliss, A. P., Tipper, S. P., Spaniol, A. P., Pratt, J., & Welsh, T. N. (2016). Ownership status influences the degree of joint facilitatory behavior. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1371–1378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constable, M. D., Kritikos, A., & Bayliss, A. P. (2011). Grasping the concept of personal property. Cognition, 119(3), 430–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constable, M. D., Kritikos, A., Lipp, O. V., & Bayliss, A. P. (2014). Object ownership and action: The influence of social context and choice on the physical manipulation of personal property. Experimental Brain Research, 232(12), 3749–3761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Scorolli, C., & Borghi, A. M. (2011a). When objects are close to me: Affordances in the peripersonal space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 302–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Tieri, G., Sinigaglia, C., & Committeri, G. (2010). Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Experimental Brain Research, 207(1–2), 95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, M., Committeri, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011b). Ready both to your and to my hands: Mirroring the reaching space of others. PLoS ONE, 6, e17923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, M., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). 17 Grasping Affordance: A Window onto Social Cognition. In Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience (Vol. 431).

  • Creem-Regehr, S. H., Gagnon, K. T., Geuss, M. N., & Stefanucci, J. K. (2013). Relating spatial perspective taking to the perception of other’s affordances: Providing a foundation for predicting the future behavior of others. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 596.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Haan, E. H. F., Jackson, S. T., & Schenk, T. (2018). Where are we now with ‘What’ and ‘How’? Cortex, 98(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Stefani, E., De Marco, D., & Gentilucci, M. (2016). The effects of meaning and emotional content of a sentence on the kinematics of a successive motor sequence mimiking the feeding of a conspecific. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Cesare, G., De Stefani, E., Gentilucci, M., & De Marco, D. (2017). Vitality forms expressed by others modulate our own motor response: A kinematic study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2018). Bodies and other objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., Swabey, D., Bridgeman, J., May, B., Tucker, M., & Hyne, A. (2013). Bodies and other visual objects: The dialectics of reaching toward objects. Psychological Research, 77(1), 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. (2016a). Pictures, action properties and motor related effects. Synthese, 193(12), 3787–3817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. (2016b). Visual feeling of presence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. (2016c). Through the forest of motor representations. Consciousness and Cognition, 43, 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.05.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. (2017a). Are pictures peculiar objects of perception? Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(3), 372–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2017.28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. (2017b). Two visual systems in molyneux subjects. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 643–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9533-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, G. (2018). The neural dynamics of seeing-in. Erkenntnis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0060-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferri, F., Campione, G. C., Dalla Volta, R., Gianelli, C., & Gentilucci, M. (2010). To me or to you? When the self is advantaged. Experimental Brain Research, 203(4), 637–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferri, F., Campione, G. C., Dalla Volta, R., Gianelli, C., & Gentilucci, M. (2011). Social requests and social affordances: How they affect the kinematics of motor sequences during interactions between conspecifics. PLoS ONE, 6(1), e15855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, C., Bardi, L., Epifanio, A., Committeri, G., Moors, A., & Brass, M. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the inferior frontal cortex affects the “social scaling” of extrapersonal space depending on perspective-taking ability. Experimental Brain Research, 235(3), 673–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, C., Committeri, G., Müller, B. C., Deschrijver, E., & Brass, M. (2015). How watching Pinocchio movies changes our subjective experience of extrapersonal space. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, C., Costantini, M., & Committeri, G. (2014). Sharing space: the presence of other bodies extends the space judged as near. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e114719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, E., Macdonald, S. N., Chen, J., Quinlan, D. J., Goodale, M. A., & Culham, J. C. (2018). Getting a grip on reality: Grasping movements directed to real objects and images rely on dissociable neural representations. Cortex, 98, 34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianelli, C., Lugli, L., Baroni, G., Nicoletti, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2011). “The object is wonderful or prickly”: How different object properties modulate behavior in a joint context. European Perspectives on Cognitive Science, 978–954.

  • Gianelli, C., Lugli, L., Baroni, G., Nicoletti, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2013a). The impact of social context and language comprehension on behaviour: A kinematic investigation. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e85151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianelli, C., Scorolli, C., & Borghi, A. M. (2013b). Acting in perspective: The role of body and language as social tools. Psychological Research, 77(1), 40–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. (2014). Few believe the world is flat. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(4), 250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golonka, S. (2015). Laws and conventions in language-related behaviors. Ecological Psychology, 27(3), 236–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grèzes, J., Armony, J. L., Rowe, J., & Passingham, R. E. (2003). Activations related to “mirror” and “canonical” neurones in the human brain: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 18(4), 928–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 19, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heft, H. (2003). Affordances, dynamic experience, and the challenge of reification. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 149–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacoboni, M., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V., Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology, 3(3), e79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet, P. O., Chambon, V., Borghi, A. M., & Tessari, A. (2012). Object affordances tune observers’ prior expectations about tool-use behaviors. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e39629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jax, S. A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2010). Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition, 115(2), 350–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jongeneel, D., Withagen, R., & Zaal, F. T. (2015). Do children create standardized playgrounds? A study on the gap-crossing affordances of jumping stones. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalénine, S., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2016). Thematic knowledge, artifact concepts, and the left posterior temporal lobe: Where action and object semantics converge. Cortex, 82, 164–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalénine, S., Shapiro, A. D., Flumini, A., Borghi, A. M., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2014). Visual context modulates potentiation of grasp types during semantic object categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 645–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalénine, S., Wamain, Y., Decroix, J., & Coello, Y. (2016). Conflict between object structural and functional affordances in peripersonal space. Cognition, 155, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, P. (2018). Time–frequency analysis of event-related potentials associated with the origin of the motor interference effect from dangerous objects. Brain Research, 1682, 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, P., Cao, R., Chen, X., & Wang, Y. (2017). Response inhibition or evaluation of danger? An event-related potential study regarding the origin of the motor interference effect from dangerous objects. Brain Research, 1664, 63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, C. F. (2000). Information, perception, and action: What should ecological psychologists learn from Milner and Goodale (1995)? Ecological Psychology, 12(3), 241–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and the physical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychological Science, 17(2), 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murata, A., Gallese, V., Luppino, G., Kaseda, M., & Sakata, H. (2000). Selectivity for the shape, size, and orientation of objects for grasping in neurons of monkey parietal area AIP. Journal of Neurophysiology, 83(5), 2580–2601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natraj, N., Pella, Y. M., Borghi, A. M., & Wheaton, L. A. (2015). The visual encoding of tool–object affordances. Neuroscience, 310, 512–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natraj, N., Poole, V., Mizelle, J. C., Flumini, A., Borghi, A. M., & Wheaton, L. A. (2013). Context and hand posture modulate the neural dynamics of tool–object perception. Neuropsychologia, 51(3), 506–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neldner, K., Mushin, I., & Nielsen, M. (2017). Young children’s tool innovation across culture: Affordance visibility matters. Cognition, 168, 335–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman-Norlund, R. D., van Schie, H. T., van Zuijlen, A. M. J., & Bekkering, H. (2007). The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 817–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orban, G. A., & Caruana, F. (2014). The neural basis of human tool use. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiurak, F., & Badets, A. (2016). Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. Psychological Review, 123(5), 534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pezzulo, G., & Cisek, P. (2016). Navigating the affordance landscape: feedback control as a process model of behavior and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(6), 414–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pezzulo, G., Iodice, P., Donnarumma, F., Dindo, H., & Knoblich, G. (2017). Avoiding accidents at the champagne reception: A study of joint lifting and balancing. Psychological Science, 28(3), 338–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, C. M., Kyttä, M., & Stedman, R. (2017). Sense of place, fast and slow: The potential contributions of affordance theory to sense of place. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1674. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddoch, M. J., Pippard, B., Booth, L., Rickell, J., Summers, J., Brownson, A., et al. (2011). Effects of action relations on the configural coding between objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti, G., & Matelli, M. (2003). Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: Anatomy and functions. Experimental Brain Research, 153(2), 146–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2011). Action relations facilitate the identification of briefly-presented objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(2), 597–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacheli, L. M., Aglioti, S. M., & Candidi, M. (2015). Social cues to joint actions: the role of shared goals. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1034

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacheli, L. M., Candidi, M., Pavone, E. F., Tidoni, E., & Aglioti, S. M. (2012). And yet they act together: Interpersonal perception modulates visuo-motor interference and mutual adjustments during a joint-grasping task. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e50223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacheli, L. M., Tidoni, E., Pavone, E. F., Aglioti, S. M., & Candidi, M. (2013). Kinematics fingerprints of leader and follower role-taking during cooperative joint actions. Experimental Brain Research, 226(4), 473–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 429–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakreida, K., Effnert, I., Thill, S., Menz, M. M., Jirak, D., Eickhoff, C. R., et al. (2016). Affordance processing in segregated parieto-frontal dorsal stream sub-pathways. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, L., Becchio, C., Bulgheroni, M., & Castiello, U. (2009). Modulation of the action control system by social intention: Unexpected social requests override preplanned action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scorolli, C., Borghi, A. M., & Tummolini, L. (2017). Cues of control modulate the ascription of object ownership. Psychological Research, 82(5), 929–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scorolli, C., Miatton, M., Wheaton, L. A., & Borghi, A. M. (2014). I give you a cup, I get a cup: A kinematic study on social intention. Neuropsychologia, 57, 196–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevos, J., Grosselin, A., Brouillet, D., Pellet, J., & Massoubre, C. (2016). Is there any influence of variations in context on object-affordance effects in schizophrenia? Perception of property and goals of action. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1551. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoffregen, T. A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal–environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 115–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thill, S., Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., Ziemke, T., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 491–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 493–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769–800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tummolini, L., Scorolli, C., & Borghi, A. M. (2013). Disentangling the sense of ownership from the sense of fairness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 101–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turvey, M. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: An outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4, 173–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110(1), 124–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Elk, M., van Schie, H., & Bekkering, H. (2014). Action semantics: A unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(2), 220–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Withagen, R., & Caljouw, S. R. (2017). Aldo van Eyck’s playgrounds: Aesthetics, affordances, and creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, J. K., & Riley, M. (2014). Discovering your inner Gibson: Reconciling action-specific and ecological approaches. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(6), 1353–1370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wokke, M. E., Knot, S. L., Fouad, A., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2016). Conflict in the kitchen: Contextual modulation of responsiveness to affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 40, 141–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, S., Humphreys, G. W., & Heinke, D. (2015). Implied actions between paired objects lead to affordance selection by inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, S., Humphreys, G. W., Mevorach, C., & Heinke, D. (2017). The involvement of the dorsal stream in processing implied actions between paired objects: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 95, 240–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, E. Y., Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2010). The paired-object affordance effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2006). Are different affordances subserved by different neural pathways? Brain and Cognition, 62(2), 134–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipoli Caiani, S. (2014). Extending the notion of affordance. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 275–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipoli Caiani, S., & Ferretti, G. (2017). Semantic and pragmatic integration in vision for action. Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Luca Tummolini for thoughtful comments on a previous version, and Laura Barca, Chiara Fini, Francois Foerster, Luisa Lugli, Giovanni Pezzulo, Laura Rio and Matt Sims, for discussions on affordances.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via degli Apuli 1, 00145, Rome, Italy

    Anna M. Borghi

  2. Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Rome, Italy

    Anna M. Borghi

Authors
  1. Anna M. Borghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna M. Borghi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borghi, A.M. Affordances, context and sociality. Synthese 199, 12485–12515 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02044-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02044-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation