1. Ануфриева А.А., Горбунова Е.P. Аффордансы как часть процесса идентификации объекта в зрительном поиске // Российский психологический журнал. 2022. Том 19. № 2. С. 188-200. DOI: 10.21702/rpj.2022.2.14 EDN: MDSVSU
2. Ануфриева А.А., Горбунова Е.С. Роль активации моторных программ в зрительном поиске [Электронный ресурс] / Под ред. И.Ю. Владимирова, С.Ю. Коровкина // Материалы Всероссийской научной конференции памяти Дж.С. Брунера “Психология познания”: Ярославль, 16-17 декабря 2022 г. Ярославль: Филигрань, 2023. С. 21-25. URL: item.asp?id=50741579 (дата обращения: 04.04.2024). EDN: PPVVLX
3. Ануфриева А.А., Сапронов Ф.А., Горбунова Е.С. Эффект совместимости в задаче зрительного поиска [Электронный ресурс] / Под ред. И.Ю. Владимирова, С.Ю. Коровкина // Материалы Всероссийской научной конференции памяти Дж.С. Брунера “Психология познания”: Ярославль, 01-03 декабря 2023 года. Ярославль: Филигрань, 2024. С. 27-30. URL: item.asp?id=62489998 (дата обращения: 04.04.2024). EDN: VUTNPH
4. Котов А.А., Носов А.В. Аффордансы и категории: одинаков ли эффект совместимости по отношению к объектам с разным категориальным статусом? [Электронный ресурс] // Российский журнал когнитивной науки. 2017. Том 4. № 2-3. С. 39-48. URL: https://publications.hse.ru/pubs/share/direct/215667559.pdf (дата обращения: 04.04.2024). EDN: UZSRFY
5. Action-related properties shape object representations in the ventral stream / B.Z. Mahon, S.C. Milleville, G.A.L. Negri, R.I. Rumiati, A. Caramazza, A. Martin // Neuron. 2007. Vol. 55. № 3. P. 507-520. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.011
6. Are visual stimuli sufficient to evoke motor information?: Studies with hand primes / A.M. Borghi, C. Bonfiglioli, L. Lugli, P. Ricciardelli, S. Rubichi, R. Nicoletti // Neuroscience Letters. 2007. Vol. 411. № 1. P. 17-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.10.003
7. Azaad S., Laham S.M., Shields P. A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect // Cognition. 2019. Vol. 190. P. 105-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.028 EDN: YFCNQX
8. Bamford L.E., Klassen N.R., Karl J.M. Faster recognition of graspable targets defined by orientation in a visual search task // Experimental Brain Research. 2020. Vol. 238. № 4. P. 905-916. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-020-05769-z EDN: HILUBJ
9. Borghi A.M. Object concepts and action // Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking / Eds. D. Pecher, R.A. Zwaan. N.Y.: Published by Cambridge University Press, 2005. P. 8-34.
10. Brain activation during conceptual processing of action and sound verbs / M. Popp, N.M. Trumpp, E.J. Sim, M. Kiefer // Advances in Cognitive Psychology. 2019. Vol. 15. № 4. P. 236-255. DOI: 10.5709/acp-0272-4
11. Bub D.N., Masson M.E.J., Lin T. Features of planned hand actions influence identification of graspable objects // Psychological Science. 2013. Vol. 24. № 7. P. 1269-1276. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612472909
12. Chen Q., Garcea F.E., Mahon B.Z. The representation of object-directed action and function knowledge in the human brain // Cerebral Cortex. 2016. Vol. 26. № 4. P. 1609-1618. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhu328
13. Creem S.H., Proffitt D.R. Defining the cortical visual systems:“what”,“where”, and “how” // Acta psychologica. 2001. Vol. 107. № 1-3. P. 43-68. DOI: 10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00021-X
14. From “satisfaction of search” to “subsequent search misses”: a review of multiple-target search errors across radiology and cognitive science / S.H. Adamo, B.J. Gereke, S. Shomstein, J. Schmidt // Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2021. Vol. 6. Article ID 59. 19 p. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-021-00318-w EDN: ILRHXW
15. Greco A. Spatial and Motor Aspects in the “Action-Sentence Compatibility Effect” // Frontiers in Psychology. 2021. Vol. 12. Article ID 647899. 16 p. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647899 EDN: YVWBUG
16. Haddad L., Wamain Y., Kalénine S. Stimulus-response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size? // Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2023. Vol. 77. № 1. P. 29-41. DOI: 10.1177/17470218231161310
17. Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science / Eds. H. Cohen, C. Lefebvre. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2005. 1136 p.
18. Hayward W.G. Whatever happened to object-centered representations? // Perception. 2012. Vol. 41. № 9. P. 1153-1162. DOI: 10.1068/p7338
19. How affordances associated with a distractor object affect compatibility effects: A study with the computational model TRoPICALS / D. Caligiore, A. Borghi, D. Parisi, R. Ellis, A. Cangelosi, G. Baldassarre // Psychological Research. 2013. Vol. 77. P. 7-19. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-012-0424-1 EDN: KXLQET
20. How do you hold your mouse? Tracking the compatibility effect between hand posture and stimulus size / A. Flumini, L. Barca, A.M. Borghi, G. Pezzulo // Psychological research. 2015. Vol. 79. P. 928-938. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0622-0 EDN: XGDWVZ
21. Kozuch B. Conscious vision guides motor action-rarely // Philosophical Psychology. 2023. Vol. 36. № 3. P. 443-476. DOI: 10.1080/09515089.2022.2044461 EDN: ZZHXTY
22. Kriegel U. Two notions of mental representation / U. Kriegel // Current controversies in philosophy of mind. New York: Routledge, 2013. P. 161-179. DOI: 10.4324/9780203116623
23. Lacey S., Sathian K. Representation of object form in vision and touch [Электронный ресурс] // The neural bases of multisensory processes / Eds. M.M. Murray, M.T. Wallace. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, 2012. P. 179-190. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92850/ (дата обращения: 04.04.2024).
24. Mahon B.Z., Hickok G. Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond // Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2016. Vol. 23. P. 941-958. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1045-2 EDN: UVYTBX
25. Martin A. GRAPES-Grounding representations in action, perception, and emotion systems: How object properties and categories are represented in the human brain // Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2016. Vol. 23. P. 979-990. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0842-3 EDN: EYHPIF
26. Maxfield J.T., Zelinsky G.J. Searching through the hierarchy: How level of target categorization affects visual search // Visual cognition. 2012. Vol. 20. № 10. P. 1153-1163. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2012.735718
27. McKellar P. Imagination and thinking: A psychological analysis. New York: Basic Books, 1957. 248 p.
28. Milner A.D., Goodale M.A. Visual pathways to perception and action // Progress in brain research. 1993. Vol. 95. P. 317-337. DOI: 10.1016/S0079-6123(08)60379-9
29. Moise N. Getting a Handle on Meaning: Planned Hand Actions’ Influence on the Identification of Handled Objects: a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of science in the Department of Psychology [Электронный ресурс]. Victoria, 2022. 38 p. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1828/14285 (дата обращения: 04.04.2024).
30. Moretti S., Greco A. Assessing with the head: a motor compatibility effect. MOCO ’18: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Movement and Computing: Genoa, June 28-30, 2018. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018. Article ID 35. 4 p. DOI: 10.1145/3212721.3212853
31. Motor Compatibility Effect on the Comprehension of Complex Manual Action Sentences in L2: An ERP Study / A. Zang, H. Wang, H. Guo, Y. Wang // Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2022. Vol. 45. № 2. P. 176-193. DOI: 10.1515/cjal-2022-0202 EDN: ESXOEA
32. Ni L., Liu Y., Yu W. The dominant role of functional action representation in object recognition // Experimental brain research. 2019. Vol. 237. P. 363-375. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-018-5426-9 EDN: SGVCTW
33. Osiurak F., Rossetti Y., Badets A. What is an affordance? 40 years later // Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2017. Vol. 77. P. 403-417. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.014
34. Practice effects vs. transfer effects in the Simon task / S. D’Ascenzo, L. Lugli, R. Nicoletti, C. Umiltà // Psychological Research. 2020. Vol. 85. P. 1955-1969. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-020-01386-1 EDN: XCDCTR
35. Sensory and semantic activations evoked by action attributes of manipulable objects: Evidence from ERPs / C.-L. Lee, H. Huang, K.D. Federmeier, L.J. Buxbaum // NeuroImage. 2018. Vol. 167. P. 331-341. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.045
36. Sztybel P., Gómez M.A., Snow J.C. Graspable objects grab attention more than images do - even when no motor response is required // Journal of Vision. 2019. Vol. 19. № 10. Article ID 221. DOI: 10.1167/19.10.221
37. The visual size of graspable objects is needed to induce the potentiation of grasping behaviors even with verbal stimuli / M.H. Harrak, L. Heurley, N. Morgado, R. Mennella, V. Dru // Psychological Research. 2022. Vol. 86. № 7. P. 2067-2082. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-021-01635-x EDN: QRJOUS
38. Tucker M., Ellis R. The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization // Visual cognition. 2001. Vol. 8. № 6. P. 769-800. DOI: 10.1080/13506280042000144
39. Wolfe J.M. Asymmetries in visual search: An introduction // Perception & psychophysics. 2001. Vol. 63. P. 381-389. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194406 EDN: MHNMMX
40. Yamani Y., Ariga A., Yamada Y. Object affordances potentiate responses but do not guide attentional prioritization // Frontiers in integrative neuroscience. 2016. Vol. 9. Article ID 74. 6 p. DOI: 10.3389/fnint.2015.00074