바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1226-9654
  • E-ISSN2733-466X
  • KCI

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.27 No.3

Citation Share

행위 가능성에 의한 개인외 공간의 시각 민감도 향상

Action capability enhances visual sensitivity in the extrapersonal space

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2015, v.27 no.3, pp.543-560
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.010
박정호 (Johns Hopkins University)
김효정 (University of Texas at Austin)
백종수 (연세대학교 인간행동연구소)
이도준 (연세대학교)
박정호, 김효정, 백종수, & 이도준. (2015). 행위 가능성에 의한 개인외 공간의 시각 민감도 향상. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 27(3), 543-560, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.010

초록

관찰자를 둘러싼 공간 중 손이나 발이 닿을 수 있는 공간과 그 바깥 공간을 각각 개인주변 공간과 개인외 공간이라 한다. 관찰자의 행위가 집중되는 개인주변 공간에서는 신체 감각과 통합된 시각 정보처리가 물체에 관한 시각 표상을 향상시킨다. 최근 여러 연구들은 개인외 공간에서도 관찰자가 도구를 사용하여 행위를 취할 수 있으면 개인주변 공간과 유사한 다중 감각적 통합이 발생할 수 있다고 보고하였다. 이에 본 연구는 개인외 공간의 시각 표상이 행위 가능성에 의해 향상될 수 있는지 검증하였다. 참가자들은 손이 닿을 수 없는 거리에 위치한 컴퓨터 화면 속의 과제를 자판을 사용하여 수행하였다. 실험 전, 후에 대비역을 측정함으로써 시각 민감도에 미치는 행위 가능성의 효과를 측정하였다. 실험 1에서는 화면에 제시된 공의 움직임을 직접 조작했던 행위 집단과 조작할 수 없었던 관찰 집단의 시각 민감도 변화를 측정하였다. 그 결과, 행위 집단의 시각 민감도가 관찰 집단에 비해 더 향상되었다. 실험 2에서는 행위 가능성을 참가자 내 설계로 조작하였다. 각 참가자는 공을 한쪽 화면에서는 움직일 수 있었지만 다른 쪽에서는 움직일 수 없었다. 그 결과, 공을 조작할 수 있었던 위치의 시각 민감도가 다른 위치의 시각 민감도보다 더 향상되었다. 이러한 결과는 행위 가능성에 의해 활성화된 두정엽의 행위자-중심 좌표 체계가 개인외 공간의 시각 표상을 향상시켰기 때문인 것으로 추정된다.

keywords
행위 가능성, 개인외 공간, 개인주변 공간, 시각 민감도, 대비역, action capability, extrapersonal space, peripersonal space, visual sensitivity, contrast threshold

Abstract

The physical space around an observer can be divided into the peripersonal space that immediately surrounds the observer and the peripersonal space that cannot be reached by the observer’s hands and other body parts. Actions are mostly executed in the peripersonal space, in which visual processing integrates with somatic perception and enhances visual representations of objects. Recent studies have provided evidence that similar multimodal integration takes place in the extrapersonal space as well if tool-use enables an observer to act towards objects there. Here, we tested if action capability can improve visual sensitivity in the extrapersonal space. Participants performed a task in a distant screen of a computer by using a keyboard. The effect of action capability on visual sensitivity was measured in terms of contrast threshold. Experiment 1 compared threshold changes in one group of participants, who manipulated the movement of a target ball with those in the other group of participants, who did not have a chance to manipulate the ball movement. The improvement in visual sensitivity was greater in the action group than in the observation group. Experiment 2 allowed individual participants to manipulate the movement of a target ball in a part of the screen but not in another part of the screen. Participants showed greater improvement in visual sensitivity only in the screen area in which they were capable of moving the ball. These findings suggest that action capability activates actor-centered coordinate systems in parietal cortex, which in turn enhance visual representations of the extrapersonal space.

keywords
행위 가능성, 개인외 공간, 개인주변 공간, 시각 민감도, 대비역, action capability, extrapersonal space, peripersonal space, visual sensitivity, contrast threshold

참고문헌

1.

Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., 3rd, & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035-1047.

2.

Abrams, R. A., & Weidler, B. J. (2014). Trade-offs in visual processing for stimuli near the hands. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 383-390.

3.

Ahissar, M., & Hochstein, S. (1993). Attentional control of early perceptual learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90(12), 5718-5722.

4.

Bassolino, M., Serino, A., Ubaldi, S., & Ladavas, E. (2010). Everyday use of the computer mouse extends peripersonal space representation. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 803-811.

5.

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433-436.

6.

Brockmole, J. R., Davoli, C. C., Abrams, R. A., & Witt, J. K. (2013). The world within reach: Effects of hand posture and tool-use on visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 38-44.

7.

Brown, L. G. (1996). Additional rules for the transformed up-down method in psychophysics. Perception and Psychophysics, 58(6), 959-962.

8.

Colby, C. L., Duhamel, J. R., & Goldberg, M. E. (1993). Ventral intraparietal area of the macaque: anatomic location and visual response properties. Journal of Neurophysiology, 69(3), 902-914.

9.

Cooper, A. D., Sterling, C. P., Bacon, M. P., & Bridgeman, B. (2012). Does action affect perception or memory? Vision Research, 62, 235-240.

10.

Cowey, A., Small, M., & Ellis, S. (1994). Left visuo-spatial neglect can be worse in far than in near space. Neuropsychologia, 32(9), 1059- 1066.

11.

Davoli, C. C., Brockmole, J. R., & Witt, J. K. (2012). Compressing perceived distance with remote tool-use: real, imagined, and remembered. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 80-89.

12.

di Pellegrino, G., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). Direct evidence from parietal extinction of enhancement of visual attention near a visible hand. Current Biology, 10(22), 1475-1477.

13.

Dosher, B. A., & Lu, Z. L. (2000). Noise exclusion in spatial attention. Psychological Science, 11(2), 139-146.

14.

Durgin, F. H., DeWald, D., Lechich, S., Li, Z., & Ontiveros, Z. (2011). Action and motivation: measuring perception or strategies? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(6), 1077-1082.

15.

Firestone, C. (2013). How “Paternalistic” Is Spatial Perception? Why Wearing a Heavy Backpack Doesn't- and Couldn't-Make Hills Look Steeper. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 455-473.

16.

Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). “Top-down” effects where none should be found: the El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science, 25(1), 38-46.

17.

Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. (2010). The bodily self as power for action. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 746-755.

18.

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

19.

Graziano, M. S., Yap, G. S., & Gross, C. G. (1994). Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science, 266(5187), 1054-1057.

20.

Halligan, P. W., & Marshall, J. C. (1991). Left neglect for near but not far space in man. Nature, 350(6318), 498-500.

21.

Holmes, N. P., & Spence, C. (2004). The body schema and the multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cognitive Processing, 5(2), 94-105.

22.

Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2003). Memory for rejected distractors in visual search? Visual Cognition, 10(3), 257-298.

23.

Hyvarinen, J., & Poranen, A. (1974). Function of the parietal associative area 7 as revealed from cellular discharges in alert monkeys. Brain, 97(4), 673-692.

24.

Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport, 7(14), 2325-2330.

25.

Karni, A., & Sagi, D. (1991). Where practice makes perfect in texture discrimination: evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 88(11), 4966- 4970.

26.

Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79-86.

27.

Maravita, A., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2003). Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Current Biology, 13(13), R531-539.

28.

Maravita, A., Spence, C., Kennett, S., & Driver, J. (2002). Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition, 83(2), B25-34.

29.

Masson, M. E., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 57(3), 203-220.

30.

McKendrick, A. M., Weymouth, A. E., Battista, J. (2013). Visual form perception from age 20 through 80 years. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 54(3), 1730-1739.

31.

Owsley, C., Sekuler, R., & Siemsen, D. (1983). Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vision Research, 23(7), 689-699.

32.

Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437-442.

33.

Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166-177.

34.

Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (1997). The space around us. Science, 277(5323), 190-191.

35.

Rizzolatti, G., Scandolara, C., Matelli, M., & Gentilucci, M. (1981). Afferent properties of periarcuate neurons in macaque monkeys. II. Visual responses. Behavioural Brain Research, 2(2), 147-163.

36.

Roelfsema, P. R., van Ooyen, A., & Watanabe, T. (2010). Perceptual learning rules based on reinforcers and attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(2), 64-71.

37.

Schendel, K., & Robertson, L. C. (2004). Reaching out to see: arm position can attenuate human visual loss. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(6), 935-943.

38.

Serino, A., Bassolino, M., Farne, A., & Ladavas, E. (2007). Extended multisensory space in blind cane users. Psychological Science, 18(7), 642-648.

39.

Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In J. N. Castellan Jr., & F. Restle (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 3, pp. 199-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

40.

Tseng, P., & Bridgeman, B. (2011). Improved change detection with nearby hands. Experimental Brain Research, 209(2), 257-269.

41.

Vuilleumier, P., Valenza, N., Mayer, E., Reverdin, A., & Landis, T. (1998). Near and far visual space in unilateral neglect. Annals of Neurology, 43(3), 406-410.

42.

Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 880-888.

43.

Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z., & Flanagan, J. R. (2001). Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(11), 487-494.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책