Front. Hum. Neurosci. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Front. Hum. Neurosci. 1662-5161 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fnhum.2021.750105 Human Neuroscience Correction Corrigendum: Exploring the Role of Action Consequences in the Handle-Response Compatibility Effect Scerrati Elisa 1 * D'Ascenzo Stefania 2 Lugli Luisa 2 Iani Cristina 3 4 Rubichi Sandro 1 4 Nicoletti Roberto 2 1Department of Education and Humanities, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy 2Department of Philosophy and Communication, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy 3Department of Surgery, Medicine, Dentistry and Morphological Sciences With Interest in Transplant, Oncology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy 4Center for Neuroscience and Neurotechnology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

Edited and reviewed by: Dimitrios Kourtis, University of Stirling, United Kingdom

 *Correspondence: Elisa Scerrati elisa.scerrati@unimore.it; elisa.scerrati@unibo.it orcid.org/0000-0002-4042-6140

This article was submitted to Cognitive Neuroscience, a section of the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

 15 09 2021 2021 15 750105 30 07 2021 03 08 2021 Copyright © 2021 Scerrati, D'Ascenzo, Lugli, Iani, Rubichi and Nicoletti. 2021 Scerrati, D'Ascenzo, Lugli, Iani, Rubichi and Nicoletti

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A Corrigendum on Exploring the Role of Action Consequences in the Handle-Response Compatibility Effect by Scerrati, E., D'Ascenzo, S., Lugli, L., Iani, C., Rubichi, S., and Nicoletti, R. (2020). Front. Hum. Neurosci. 14:286. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00286 handle-response compatibility response-effect compatibility common coding of intention and action ideomotor theory affordance

In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 1 as published. There was a missing reference of Kourtis and Vingerhoets (2015). The corrected Table 1 appears below.

Prior known tests of the Handle–Response (H–R) compatibility effect showing null and/or reversed effects.

Source, Study N Stimuli Task H-R compatibility effect
Bub and Masson (2010)
2 54 Beer mugs/Teapots Color-judgement Null
Cho and Proctor (2011)
4 32 Door-handles Color/Orientation judgement Null
Cho and Proctor (2013)
1 40 Door-handles Shape-judgement Null
6 20 Door-handles Diagonal orientation judgement Null
Kostov and Janyan (2012)
1 37 Frying pans, Jugs, Saucepans Orientation judgement Null
Loach et al. (2008)
2 20 Door-handles Color-judgement Null
Pellicano et al. (2020)
1 20 Passive Torches Length judgement Null
2 20 Passive Torches Length judgement Null
3 20 Passive Torches Size judgement Null
Saccone et al. (2016)
2 25 Mostly common elongated tools Color-judgement Null
Song et al. (2014)
1 32 Passive Torches Orientation judgement Null
Symes et al. (2005)
3 33 Mostly common elongated tools Color-judgement Null
Tipper et al. (2006)
1 32 Door-handles Color-judgement Null
Yu et al. (2014)
2A 30 Mostly common elongated tools Orientation judgement Null
2B 30 Mostly common elongated tools Orientation judgement Null
3A 30 Mostly common elongated tools Orientation judgement Null
Cho and Proctor (2011)
1 64 Teapots Color/Orientation judgement Reversed
Cho and Proctor (2013)
2 80 Door-handles Color-judgement Reversed
3 20 Door-handles Color-judgement Reversed
4 60 Door-handles Color-judgement Reversed
5 20 Door-handles Color-judgement Reversed
Loach et al. (2008)
1 20 Door-handles Texture judgement Reversed
Kostov and Janyan (2015)
2 58 Frying pans, saucepans bowls/plates Orientation judgement Reversed
3 51 Frying pans, saucepans bowls/plates Orientation judgement Reversed
Kourtis and Vingerhoets (2015)
29 Mostly common elongated tools S-R compatibility Reversed
Pellicano et al. (2010)
1 20 Torches Color judgement Reversed
Pellicano et al. (2020)
2 20 Active Torches Length judgement Reversed
3 20 Active Torches Size judgement Reversed
Proctor et al. (2017)
1 20 Frying pans Orientation judgement Reversed
Yu et al. (2014)
1A 32 Mostly common elongated tools Artifact/Natural Reversed
1B 32 Mostly common elongated tools Artifact/Natural Reversed
1C 32 Mostly common elongated tools Artifact/Natural Reversed

In the original article, there was an error. The authors mistakenly reported as evidence a hypothetical interpretation offered by Kourtis and Vingerhoets (2015) of their neurophysiological results. A correction has been made to Introduction, Paragraph 2:

Evidence in favor of the H-R compatibility effect was initially provided by Tucker and Ellis (1998) who showed that judging the upright or inverted position of depicted graspable objects was influenced by the orientation of the object's handle. That is, responses were faster when the position of the handle and the responding hand were spatially aligned as compared to when they were not. This result was replicated across different tasks (e.g., Tipper et al., 2006; Saccone et al., 2016), stimuli (e.g., Pellicano et al., 2010; Pappas, 2014; Iani et al., 2018; Scerrati et al., 2019, 2020), populations (e.g., Dekker and Mareschal, 2013), response devices (e.g., Bub and Masson, 2010), and response modes (e.g., Phillips and Ward, 2002; Cho and Proctor, 2010; Proctor et al., 2017; Bub et al., 2018; for a review see Proctor and Miles, 2014; for a recent meta-analysis see Azaad et al., 2019).

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Azaad S. Laham S. M. Shields P. (2019). A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect. Cognition 190, 105–127. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.02831071502 Bub D. N. Masson M. E. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: on the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. J. Exp. Psychol. 36, 341–358. 10.1037/a001760620364923 Bub D. N. Masson M. E. Kumar R. (2018). Time course of motor affordances evoked by pictured objects and words. J. Exp. Psychol. 44, 53–68. 10.1037/xhp000043128447845 Cho D. T. Proctor R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? J. Exp. Psychol. 36, 853–861. 10.1037/a001932820695704 Cho D. T. Proctor R. W. (2011). Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. J. Exp. Psychol. 37, 737–749. 10.1037/a002193421500949 Cho D. T. Proctor R. W. (2013). Object-based correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface-property judgments with keypress responses: evidence for a basis in spatial coding. Psychol. Res. 77, 618–636. 10.1007/s00426-012-0458-423099639 Dekker T. M. Mareschal D. (2013). Object processing for action across childhood. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 31, 425–435. 10.1111/bjdp.1201724128173 Iani C. Ferraro L. Maiorana N. V. Gallese V. Rubichi S. (2018). Do already grasped objects activate motor affordances? Psychol. Res. 83, 1363–1374. 10.1007/s00426-018-1004-929627857 Kostov K. Janyan A. (2012). The role of attention in the affordance effect: can we afford to ignore it? Cogn. Process. 13, 215–218. 10.1007/s10339-012-0452-122806650 Kostov K. Janyan A. (2015). Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus–response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects. Cogn. Process. 16, 287–291. 10.1007/s10339-015-0708-726233530 Kourtis D. Vingerhoets G. (2015). Perceiving objects by their function: an EEG study on feature saliency and prehensile affordances. Biol. Psychol. 110, 138–147. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.07.01726247331 Loach D. Frischen A. Bruce N. Tsotsos J. K. (2008). An attentional mechanism for selecting appropriate actions afforded by graspable objects. Psychol. Sci. 19, 1253–1257. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02234.x19121133 Pappas Z. (2014). Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: Silhouettes and photographs. Cognition 133, 716–728. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.01825306434 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. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63, 2190–2201. 10.1080/17470218.2010.48690320589580 Pellicano A. Iani C. Maiorana N. V. Horoufchin H. Rubichi S. Lugli L. . (2020). Correspondence effect driven by salient visual asymmetries in integral object stimuli. Psychol. Res. 84, 728–742. 10.1007/s00426-018-1079-330132193 Phillips J. C. Ward R. (2002). SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: time course and specificity of response activation. Vis. Cogn. 9, 540–558. 10.1080/13506280143000575 Proctor R. W. Lien M. C. Thompson L. (2017). Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based correspondence effects? Cognition 169, 91–101. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.00928865287 Proctor R. W. Miles J. D. (2014). Does the concept of affordance add anything to explanations of stimulus–response compatibility effects? Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 60, 227–266. 10.1016/b978-0-12-800090-8.00006-8 Saccone E. J. Churches O. Nicholls M. E. (2016). Explicit spatial compatibility is not critical to the object handle effect. J. Exp. Psychol. 42, 1643–1653. 10.1037/xhp000025827668425 Scerrati E. Iani C. Lugli L. Nicoletti R. Rubichi S. (2020). Do my hands prime your hands? The hand-to-response correspondence effect. Acta Psychol. 203:103012. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.10301231981827 Scerrati E. Iani C. Lugli L. Rubichi S. (2019). Is there an action potentiation effect with two-handles objects? Giornale italiano di Psicologia 46, 987–996. Song X. Chen J. Proctor R. W. (2014). Correspondence effects with torches: grasping affordance or visual feature asymmetry? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 67, 665–675. 10.1080/17470218.2013.82499623972094 Symes E. Ellis R. Tucker M. (2005). Dissociating object-based and space-based affordances. Vis. Cogn. 12, 1337–1361. 10.1080/13506280444000445 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. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 493–498. 10.3758/bf0319387517048736 Tucker M. Ellis R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J. Exp. Psychol. 24, 830–846. 10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.8309627419 Yu A. B. Abrams R. A. Zacks J. M. (2014). Limits on action priming by pictures of objects. J. Exp. Psychol. 40, 1861–1873. 10.1037/a003739725045901