Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65

www.elsevier.com/locate/b&c

Manipulability and living/non-living category effects

on object identification
Jillian H. Fillitera, Patricia A. McMullena,*, David Westwooda,b
a
Department of Psychology and the Neuroscience Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
b
School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Accepted 12 August 2004

Abstract

Object naming studies have generally observed that both normal and brain damaged individuals are faster and more accurate at
identifying non-living objects than living objects (Humphreys, Riddoch, & Quinlan, 1988; Warrington & Shallice, 1984). However, a
potential confounding variable, manipulability, has been present in past studies that may mediate this effect. Previous studies that
have observed a non-living advantage have often used manipulable and non-manipulable exemplars to represent the non-living and
living groups, respectively. Under conditions which controlled for object manipulability and familiarity, results demonstrated
advantages for the identification of non-manipulable and for living objects.

2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction thought to store information about motoric actions asso-

Object naming studies have generally observed that
both normal and brain damaged individuals are faster
and more accurate at naming non-living objects than
living objects (Humphreys, Riddoch, & Quinlan, 1988;
Warrington & Shallice, 1984). However, a potential con-
founding variable, manipulability, has often been present
in past studies and may contribute to this effect. Typically,
studies that have observed a non-living advantage used
manipulable and non-manipulable exemplars to repre-
sent the non-living and living groups, respectively. This
study seeks to answer two questions: (1) does object
manipulability behaviourally influence object identifica-
tion and if so, in which direction and (2) does manipulabil-
ity account in some measure for differences in
identification of living and non-living objects?
Recent fMRI studies highlight the importance of
object manipulability during silent object naming by dem-
onstrating activation of areas of the cerebral cortex
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 902 494 6585.
E-mail address: mcmullen@dal.ca (P.A. McMullen).
ciated with manipulable objects (Chao & Martin, 2000).
Cortical areas that are differentially activated during the
identification of manipulable objects include the left ven-
tral premotor and left posterior parietal cortices.
Despite the aforementioned neuroimaging data, no re-
ports of the effects of manipulability on behavioural mea-
sures of normal object identification have been published,
to our knowledge (although there have been suggestions
that small manipulable objects may show identification
deficits; see Tranel, Logan, Frank, & Damasio, 1997).
Typically, neuroimages have been collected during silent
naming due to constraints on naming aloud in the scan-
ner. Hence, behavioural data have not been available
from these imaging studies. Manipulability might facili-
tate naming by speeding access to object naming. Con-
versely, it might slow object naming when additional
associations to motoric activations are involved.
Two other variables strongly connected with the
speed of object identification are familiarity and level
of specificity. Familiar objects are named more easily
than unfamiliar objects (Stewart, Parkin, & Hunkin,
1992). Familiarity with specific categories of objects also

0278-2626/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.022
62 J.H. Filliter et al. / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65
leads to expert object recognition performance which
differs from novice object recognition. Experts with an
object category identify at specific (subordinate) levels
roughly as fast as they do at less specific (basic) levels.
Novices with an object category identify at less specific
levels much more quickly than at specific levels (Tanaka
& Taylor, 1991). Additionally, atypical exemplars within
a category such as a ‘‘penguin’’ are identified at a more
specific level most quickly as opposed to a less specific
level such as ‘‘bird’’ (Jolicoeur, Gluck, & Kosslyn,
1984). For these reasons it is important to control for
object familiarity and level of specificity in any study
of object naming. However, these controls have not al-
ways been used in past studies.
The current study provided this control by having
participants rate each object that was identified with re-
spect to its familiarity on a Likert scale. Familiarity was
defined as ‘‘how often the participant thinks about or
comes in contact with the concept depicted by the ob-
ject’’ (Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980). To control for le-
vel of specificity of identification, a word–picture
verification task was used. In this task, a subordinate
name (e.g., Dalmatian) was presented simultaneously
with a picture of an object and a two-alternative choice
decision was made as to whether the word and picture
matched in meaning or not. To determine the extent
to which manipulability influences identification perfor-
mance for living and non-living objects, manipulable
and non-manipulable stimuli were identified from both
living and non-living categories. For the purposes of this
study, a manipulable object was defined as any object
that you could pick up with one hand.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Forty undergraduate psychology students at Dalhou-
sie University participated in the present experiment for
course credit. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 26.
All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vi-
sion and spoke English as their first language. In addi-
tion, all participants provided written informed consent.
2.2. Stimuli and apparatus
The stimuli in the present experiment consisted of a
word and a picture presented simultaneously. Pictures
were gray-scale photographs of everyday objects (He-
mera
objects). Coloured objects were not used to avoid
any identification advantages that might exist for objects
that have diagnostic colours such as bananas. Living,
manipulable objects were derived from the categories
of ‘‘vegetables’’ and ‘‘fruit (see Hart & Gordon,
1992),’’ while objects from the categories ‘‘office sup-
plies’’ and ‘‘kitchen utensils’’ comprised the non-living,
manipulable group. Objects drawn from the categories
‘‘watercraft’’ and ‘‘land vehicles’’ formed the non-living,
non-manipulable group, while living, non-manipulable
objects were derived from the categories ‘‘birds’’ and
‘‘dogs.’’ In total, the object set consisted of 144 exemp-
lars with 36 in each of the living, manipulable, non-liv-
ing, manipulable, living, non-manipulable, and non-
living, non-manipulable categories. The object sets used
in the present experiment were adapted from those of
Hamm and McMullen (1998).
Prior to each trial, a black fixation cross that sub-
tended approximately 3 of visual angle was presented
on a white background. The object names, which were
typed in upper and lower case letters in 50-point black
Times New Roman font, were horizontally centered
on the computer screen. The vertical midline of each
word was located 6 cm below the top of the screen.
The gray-scale objects subtended, on average, 11 of vi-
sual angle and were also horizontally centered. The ver-
tical midline of each picture was located approximately
15.5 cm below the top of the computer screen.
In all phases of the experiment, stimuli were presented
on a 16 in. View Sonic GS773 monitor. Superlab Pro 1.07
for Windows (Cedrus) was used to present stimuli and col-
lect data. In each block of trials, half of the trials were
‘‘match’’ trials in which the meanings of the picture and
the word were in agreement. The other half of the trials
were ‘‘mismatch’’ trials, in which the meaning of the pic-
ture and word did not correspond. Mismatch names were
taken from the same category (living, manipulable; living,
non-manipulable; non-living, manipulable; or non-living,
non-manipulable) as the pictures with which they were
presented. To indicate that a match or a mismatch trial
had occurred, participants responded by pressing either
the ‘‘z’’ key or the ‘‘/’’ key, respectively, on a standard key-
board. Both of these response keys were colour coded
with green representing a match trial and red representing
a mismatch trial.
2.3. Procedure
Prior to the experiment, participants received a verbal
task description emphasizing both speed and accuracy
of response and completed 16 practice trials. Practice tri-
als were identical in structure to experimental trials and
stimuli from each of the living, manipulable, non-living,
manipulable, living, non-manipulable, and non-living,
non-manipulable categories were employed. Stimuli
used in the practice trials were derived from categories
not tested during the experimental phase of the study.
The structure of all trials, both practice and experi-
mental was identical. A fixation cross was first pre-
sented, followed by a word–picture pair. The fixation
cross remained on the screen for 500 ms, while the stim-
ulus remained for 2000 ms or until a response was made.
 J.H. Filliter et al. / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65
Immediately after the stimulus disappeared, the fixation
cross for the next trial appeared.
Each participant completed one block of 72 trials
with 36 match trials and 36 mismatch trials. Half of
the 144 objects were identified by any one participant
with the half identified alternating across participants.
Exemplars were randomly distributed within a block.
Across all participants each picture was seen on match
and mismatch trials, equally often.
3. Results
Correct response times to ‘‘match’’ trials were ana-
lyzed since it is only on these trials that there is certainty
about the object representation accessed to make a
match decision. Participants were required to achieve
accuracy rates of greater than 70% in each cell of the re-
peated measures design (living/non-living · manipula-
ble/non-manipulable). In addition, only response
latencies within 2.5 standard deviations of the mean
reaction time for each condition were included.
Separate analyses were performed on responses to the
entire object set (36 objects per each of four categories) for
which data from 34 participants satisfied all criteria, and
to a restricted object set in which the mean and range of
familiarity ratings were matched across all four condi-
tions for which data from 40 participants satisfied all cri-
teria. This restricted object set contained 14 exemplars per
category. See Fig. 1 for a graphical representation of the
results and the Appendix for the objects presented.
3.1. Entire object set without familiarity control
3.1.1. Reaction time
Manipulable objects were identified more quickly
than non-manipulable objects (F (1, 33) = 34.8, p <
.0001). Also, living objects were identified more quickly
than non-living objects (F (1, 33) = 5.8, p = .02). To
compare the present results with many previous studies,
the confounded categories of living, non-manipulable
and non-living, manipulable were compared using a
Fig. 1. Mean reaction time in ms as a function of manipulability and living/non-living category for (A) the match trials for the entire object set and
for (B) the match trials for the familiarity controlled object set. Error bars are standard error of the mean. Accuracy in percentage is indicated beside
the means.
63
paired samples t test. A significant difference was found
(t (33) = 2.4, p = .02). Non-living, manipulable items
were identified more quickly, in keeping with many past
studies. (see Fig. 1A)
3.1.2. Accuracy
Manipulable objects were identified more accurately
than non-manipulable objects (F (1, 33) = 22.4,
p < .0001). When comparing the living, non-manipula-
ble and non-living, manipulable objects with a paired
samples t test, a significant difference was also observed
for accuracy (t (33) = 3.5, p = .0012). In keeping with
the reaction time analysis and with many past studies,
greater accuracy was achieved for non-living, manipula-
ble objects (see Fig. 1B).
3.2. Restricted object set with familiarity control
Analyses were performed using only a set of objects
matched for frequency across all conditions. This re-
stricted set included 56 objects with 14/36 objects in each
of the four conditions. The objects used in this analysis
are marked with an asterisk in the Appendix.
3.2.1. Reaction time
Manipulability again had an effect (F (1, 39) = 5.2,
p = .02). Interestingly, the direction of the effect was re-
versed from that found with the entire object set. Non-
manipulable objects were now identified more quickly
than manipulable ones. As with the analysis of all ob-
jects, living objects were identified more quickly than
non-living objects (F (1, 39) = 10.6, p < .01). The previ-
ously confounding categories of living, non-manipulable
and non-living, manipulable now failed to show a non-
living advantage because a living advantage now existed
for both manipulable and non-manipulable objects (see
Fig. 1B).
3.2.2. Accuracy
There were no main effects or interactions with this
analysis. These results are inconsistent with a speed–
accuracy trade-off.
64 J.H. Filliter et al. / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65
4. Discussion
Results from this experiment indicate that manipula-
bility of objects does indeed influence their identification.
Interestingly, the direction of this effect depended on
whether object familiarity was controlled. When familiar-
ity was not controlled, manipulable objects were identi-
fied more quickly. When familiarity was controlled, they
were identified more slowly than non-manipulable ob-
jects. These data suggest that when the strong effects of
familiarity are equated across conditions, objects with
associations for motoric actions are actually identified
more slowly than objects without these associations.
It should be noted that the level at which an object is
typically identified can change across category. One might
imagine that a tomato (a living, manipulable object) is
most rapidly named a tomato. Whereas, as Scottish Ter-
rier (a living, non-manipulable object) is most quickly
named a dog. This kind of confound would seem to put
manipulable objects at an advantage, which is in fact what
was found from an analysis of the entire object set. How-
ever, using a set of objects controlled for familiarity at the
specific (subordinate) level produced the opposite effect,
an advantage for non-manipulable objects. The Appendix
indicates the objects in this familiarity controlled set.
Many of these objects are distinctive, such as kayak, Chi-
huahua, penguin, and it has been shown that distinctive or
atypical objects are most quickly named at the subordi-
nate level (Tanaka & Taylor, 1991). Hence, any confound
with level of identification and manipulability has been
controlled in the familiarity controlled set.
A frequent practice in past studies of category-spe-
cific identification has been to use non-living objects pre-
Appendix. Objects with asterisks were used in the analysis of objects controlled for frequency
dominantly from the category of tools and living objects
predominantly from the category of animals. The cur-
rent results demonstrate that using non-manipulable,
living objects and manipulable, non-living objects in this
way, combined with a lack of control over the familiar-
ity of these objects can result in a spurious advantage for
the identification of non-living objects. This finding is
consistent with the results from many studies in the area
(Humphreys et al., 1988). Importantly, the current data
show that even when familiarity is not controlled, con-
trolling for manipulability across living and non-living
categories is sufficient to produce a living advantage. Gi-
ven that a living advantage was found when familiarity
was controlled with the objects used in this study, it is
likely that this effect reflects a truer direction of the ef-
fects of category membership.
In conclusion, this experiment has demonstrated
that manipulability can influence object identification.
When familiarity, manipulability and level of identifica-
tion are controlled across living and non-living catego-
ries of objects, manipulable objects show a cost in
identification performance, presumably due to associa-
tions with appropriate motor responses. Under theses
conditions, living objects also show an advantage.
When these variables are not controlled through the
use of tools as non-living objects and animals as living
objects, a spurious non-living advantage is found.
Notably, even without controlling for familiarity, but
controlling for manipulability, a living advantage was
found. Hence, future studies of category-specificity
should ideally control for object familiarity and manip-
ulability. Otherwise, spurious non-living object advan-
tages may ensue.
 J.H. Filliter et al. / Brain and Cognition 57 (2005) 61–65
References
Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-
made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478–484.
Hamm, J. P., & McMullen, P. A. (1998). Effects of orientation on the
identification of rotated objects depend on the level of identity.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 21, 413–426.
Hart, J., & Gordon, B. (1992). Neural subsystems of object knowledge.
Nature, 359, 60–64.
Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1988). Cascade
processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5,
67–103.
Jolicoeur, P., Gluck, M., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1984). Pictures and names:
Making the connection. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 243–275.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260
pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity
65
and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human
Learning and Memory, 5, 174–215.
Stewart, F., Parkin, A. J., & Hunkin, N. M. (1992). Naming
impairments following recovery from herpes simplex encephalitis:
Category-specific?. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
44A, 261–284.
Tanaka, J., & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the
basic level in the eye of the beholder?. Cognitive Psychology, 23,
457–482.
Tranel, D., Logan, C. G., Frank, R. J., & Damasio, A. R.
(1997). Explaining category-related effects in the retrieval of
conceptual and lexical knowledge for concrete entities: Oper-
ationalization and analysis of factors. Neuropsychologia, 35(10),
1329–1339.
Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic
impairments. Brain, 107, 829–854.