Stephanie Rossit

Amongst all the objects we encounter, tools are unique because they are tightly linked to predictable actions. Neuroimaging studies have reported selective responses in occipitotemporal and parietal cortices when viewing pictures of tools or hands. Whether these responses contain information about specific tool-use actions (e.g., rotation for keys), and whether such information shares a neural format with action execution, remains unclear. Here, we used fMRI and multivoxel pattern analysis to ask whether specific actions associated with viewed tools could be decoded and whether action-specific information generalised across viewing and acting. Participants (N=18; 11 females) viewed tool pictures and, in separate runs, pantomimed tool-use actions in response to tool names. Familiar tools differed in their associated action (rotate or squeeze) but were matched for grip type. Viewing tool pictures elicited tool-use action information in lateral occipitotemporal cortex (LOTC), parietal cortex, and even somatosensory cortex. Notably, hand-selective LOTC was the only region in which action decoding exceeded tool-identity decoding during both viewing and pantomime, suggesting sensitivity to learned relationships between objects and characteristic hand actions. However, neither region-of-interest nor whole-brain searchlight analyses yielded reliable cross-task decoding. Thus, although overlapping cortical regions contained information about tool-use actions during perception and production, we found no evidence that this information was represented in a shared multivoxel format. These findings suggest that seeing familiar tools evokes distributed information about their associated actions and sensory consequences, but that such information may be expressed in task-dependent formats rather than simply reinstating the neural patterns engaged during action production.

Preregistration is the act of formally documenting a research plan before collecting (or at least before analysing) the data. It allows those reading a final research report to know which aspects of a study were decided before sight of the data, and which were added later. This enables informed evaluation of the severity with which scientific claims have been tested. We, as the British Neuropsychological Society Open Science Group, conducted a survey to explore awareness and adoption of open science practices within our field. Neuropsychology involves the study of relatively rare or hard-to-access participants, creating practical challenges that, according to our survey, are perceived as barriers to preregistration. We survey the available routes to preregistration, and suggest that the barriers are all surmountable in one way or another. However, there is a tension, in that higher levels of bias control require greater restriction over the flexibility of preregistered studies, but such flexibility is often essential for neuropsychological research. Researchers must therefore consider which route provides the right balance of rigour and pragmatic flexibility to render a preregistered project viable for them. By mapping out the issues and potential solutions, and by signposting relevant resources and publication routes, we hope to facilitate well-reasoned decision-making and empower neuropsychologists to enhance the transparency and rigour of their research.

It’s been repeatedly shown that pictures of graspable objects can facilitate visual processing, even in the absence of reach-to-grasp actions, an effect often attributed to the concept of affordances. A classic demonstration of this is the handle compatibility effect, characterised by faster reaction times when the orientation of a graspable object’s handle is compatible with the hand used to respond, even when the handle orientation is task-irrelevant. Nevertheless, it is debated whether the speeded reaction times are a result of affordances or spatial compatibility. First, we investigated whether we could replicate the handle compatibility effect while controlling for spatial compatibility. Participants ( N = 68) responded with left or right-handed keypresses to whether the object was upright or inverted and, in separate blocks, whether the object was red or green. We failed to replicate the handle compatibility effect, with no significant difference between compatible and incompatible conditions, in both tasks. Second, we investigated whether there is a lower visual field (VF) advantage for the handle compatibility effect in line with what has been found for hand actions. A further 68 participants responded to object orientation presented either in the upper or lower VF. A significant handle compatibility effect was observed in the lower VF, but not the upper VF. This suggests that there is a lower VF advantage for affordances, possibly as the lower VF is where our actions most frequently occur. However, future studies should explore the impact of eye movements on the handle compatibility effect and tool affordances.

It’s been repeatedly shown that pictures of graspable objects can facilitate visual processing, even in the absence of reach-to-grasp actions, an effect often attributed to the concept of affordances (Gibson, 1979). A classic demonstration of this is the handle compatibility effect, characterised by faster reaction times when the orientation of a graspable object’s handle is compatible with the hand used to respond, even when the handle orientation is task-irrelevant. Nevertheless, whether faster RTs are due to affordances or spatial compatibility effects has been significantly debated. Firstly, we investigated whether we could replicate the handle compatibility effect while controlling for spatial compatibility. Participants (N=68) responded with left- or right-handed keypresses to whether the object was upright or inverted and, in separate blocks, whether the object was red or green. We failed to replicate the handle compatibility effect, with no significant difference between compatible and incompatible conditions, in both tasks. Secondly, we investigated whether there is a lower visual field (VF) advantage for the handle compatibility effect in line with what has been found for hand actions. A further 68 participants responded to object orientation presented either in the upper or lower VF. A significant handle compatibility effect was observed in the lower VF, but not the upper VF. This suggests that there is a lower VF advantage for affordances, possibly as the lower VF is where our actions most frequently occur. However, future studies should explore the impact of eye movements on the handle compatibility effect and tool affordances.

Assessment of cognitive impairments is a vital part of clinical practice. Cancellation (visual search) and line bisection are commonly used tasks to assess visuospatial attention. Despite the fact visuospatial attention is engaged in both near (within reach) and far-space (out of reach), most studies have been conducted in near-space alone. Moreover, despite their use in clinical practice, it is unclear whether cancellation and bisection tasks are related. Here, we investigated the impact of aging on cancellation and line bisection performance in far-space in a large healthy sample. We provide preliminary age-graded norms for assessing visuospatial attention in far-space calculated from a sample of 179 healthy adults, between the ages of 18-94 (mean age = 49.29). Cancellation and line bisection were presented on a large screen in far-space and completed using a wireless remote. Aging was accompanied by longer task duration for both tasks, slower search speed and poorer quality of search. However, there was no significant effect of aging on line bisection error. There was a significant correlation between the two tasks in that longer task duration in line bisection was associated with slower search speed and poorer quality of search. Overall, participants presented a leftward bias during cancellation and line bisection akin to pseudoneglect. Moreover, we found that irrespective of age, search speed was faster in males than females. We offer novel evidence that performance on cancellation and line bisection tasks are related to one another in far-space, but are also sensitive to age-related decline, and even sex differences.

Assessment of cognitive impairments is a vital part of clinical practise. Cancellation (visual search) and line bisection are commonly used tasks to assess visuospatial attention. Despite the fact visuospatial attention is engaged in both near (within reach) and far-space (out of reach), most studies have been conducted in near-space alone. Moreover, despite their use in clinical practice, it is unclear whether cancellation and bisection tasks are related. Here, we investigated the impact of aging on cancellation and line bisection performance in far-space in a large healthy sample. We provide age-related norms for assessing visuospatial attention in far-space calculated from a sample of 179 healthy adults, between the ages of 18-94 (mean age = 49.29). Cancellation and bisection were presented on a large television screen in far-space and completed using a wireless remote. Aging was accompanied by longer task duration for both tasks, slower search speed, and poorer quality of search. However, there was no significant effect of aging on line bisection error. There was a significant correlation between the two tasks in that longer task duration in line bisection was associated with slower search speed and poorer quality of search. Overall, participants presented a leftward bias during cancellation and line bisection akin to pseudo-neglect. Moreover, we also found that irrespective of age, search speed was faster in males than females. We offer novel evidence that performance on cancellation and line bisection tasks are related to one another in far-space, but are also sensitive to age-related decline, and even sex differences.

Objectives: Whilst the need for Open Research practices is well documented, there remains a lack of validated questionnaires to assess their prevalence. This study validated the Brief Open Research Survey (BORS) to measure Open Research awareness and uptake.Methods: The survey was developed in six steps: 1) a scoping exercise collated previous questionnaires on Open Research, 2) a brief (<5 minutes) questionnaire was developed, 3) peer-reviewed, 4) piloted, 5) revised, and 6) the final questionnaire was distributed to researchers across universities in the UK Reproducibility Network.Results: Respondents (n = 1,274) reported being most aware of Open Access Publications (94.1%), Preprints (85.3%), and Open Data (83.4%) and least aware of Registered Reports (38.1%), Study Preregistration (50.8%) and Research Co-production (53.7%). They reported having mostly used Open Access Publications (77.8%), Preprints (56.5%) and Open Data (52.5%) and having least used Registered Reports (8.7%), Replication Studies (16.3%), and Study Preregistration (25.3%). The most commonly reported areas of support required to enable Open Research were incentives (51%), dedicated funding (46.2%), and recognition in promotion and recruitment criteria (39.6%). Conclusion: We developed the Brief Open Research Survey that can be used to assess prevalence of Open Research practices and track uptake of these overtime.