바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.3

Citation Share

Action capability enhances visual sensitivity in the extrapersonal space

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / 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
(Johns Hopkins University)
(University of Texas at Austin)


& (2015). Action capability enhances visual sensitivity in the extrapersonal space. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 27(3), 543-560, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.010

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

Reference

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy