Object-Guided Spatial Selection in Touch Without Concurrent Changes in the Perceived Location of the Hands
Abstract
In an endogenous cueing paradigm with central visual cues, observers made speeded responses to tactile targets at the hands, which were either close together or far apart, and holding either two separate objects or one common object between them. When the hands were far apart, the response time costs associated with attending to the wrong hand were reduced when attention had to be shifted along one object jointly held by both hands compared to when it was shifted over the same distance but across separate objects. Similar reductions in attentional costs were observed when the hands were placed closer together, suggesting that processing at one hand is less prioritized over that at another when the hands can be “grouped” by virtue of arising from the same spatial location or from the same object. Probes of perceived hand locations throughout the task showed that holding a common object decreased attentional separability without decreasing the perceived separation between the hands. Our findings suggest that tactile events at the hands may be represented in a spatial framework that flexibly adapts to (object-guided) attentional demands, while their relative coordinates are simultaneously preserved.
References
2004). Mislocalizations of touch to a fake hand. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 170–181.
(1992). Visual parsing and response competition: The effect of grouping factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 145–162.
(2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106, 3–22.
(2007). Comparing intramodal and crossmodal cuing in the endogenous orienting of spatial attention. Experimental Brain Research, 179, 353–364.
(2007). Getting in touch: Segregated somatosensory what and where pathways in humans revealed by electrical neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 37, 890–903.
(1996). Multimodal constraints on tactile spatial attention. In , Attention and performance, XVI (pp. 209–235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1994). Shifting visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and parietal lesion subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 161–177.
(2004). Effects of hand posture on preparatory control processes and sensory modulations in tactile-spatial attention. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115, 596–608.
(2006). The cutaneous rabbit revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 717–732.
(2004). The attentional selection of spatial and non-spatial attributes in touch: ERP evidence for parallel and independent processes. Biological Psychology, 66, 1–20.
(2005). Covert attention in touch: Behavioral and ERP evidence for costs and benefits. Psychophysiology, 42, 171–179.
(2011). To be or not to be included in an event file: Integration and retrieval of distractors in stimulus-response episodes is influenced by perceptual grouping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1209–1227.
(2005). Visual capture of apparent limb position influences tactile temporal order judgments. Neuroscience Letters, 379, 63–68.
(2011). To what extent do Gestalt grouping principles influence tactile perception? Psychological Bulletin, 137, 538–561.
(2010). Object-guided spatial attention in touch: Holding the same object with both hands delays attentional selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 931–942.
(2009). Eye position affects the perceived location of touch. Experimental Brain Research, 198, 403–410.
(1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In , Advances in psychology (Vol. 65, pp. 117–143). North-Holland: Elsevier.
(2012). The spatial distribution of attention within and across objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 135–151.
(1995). Anticipated stimuli across skin. Nature, 373, 663.
(2011). Telling things apart: The distance between response keys influences categorization times. Psychological Science, 22, 887–890.
(2005). The role of closure in defining the “objects” of object-based attention. Perception Psychophysics, 67, 1140–1149.
(2007). The role of spatial attention in the selection of real and illusory objects. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 7963–7973.
(1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2005). What vs. where in touch: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 25, 718–726.
(2010). To group or not to group: An ecological consideration of the Stroop effect. Experimental Psychology, 57, 275–291.
(2005). Spatial modulation of tactile temporal-order judgments. Perception, 34, 1251–1262.
(2004). Tactile selective attention and body posture: Assessing the multisensory contributions of vision and proprioception. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1077–1094.
(2001). Reflexive spatial orienting of tactile attention. Experimental Brain Research, 141, 324–330.
(2000). Crossmodal links between vision and touch in covert endogenous spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1298–1319.
(2005). Tactile form and location processing in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 12601–12605.
(2010). How object-specific are object files? Evidence for integration by location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1184–1192.
(