Previous studies have shown that objects located in the peripersonal space (PPS) receive enhanced attention, as compared with extrapersonal space (EPS), However, most objects in the environment belong to someone in particular and how object ownership influences object coding in relation to PPS representation is still unclear. In the present study, after having chosen their own mug, participants performed a reachability judgement task of self-owned and other-owned mugs presented at different distances while facing a virtual character. This task was followed, on each trial, by a localisation task in which participants had to indicate where the mug, removed from view, was previously located. The two tasks were separated by a 900-ms visual mask during which the virtual character was unnoticeably shifted by 3° to evaluate the spatial frame-of-reference used. The results showed that self-owned mugs were processed faster than other-owned mugs, but only when located in the PPS. Furthermore, reachability judgements were biased for self-owned mugs, leading to an extension of the PPS representation, especially for participants with a high score on the fantasy scale of Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Finally, the virtual character shift altered the localisation performance but only for the distant mugs, suggesting a progressive shift from egocentric to allocentric frame-of-reference when moving from the PPS to EPS, irrespective of object ownership. Overall, our data reveal that the representations of ownership and PPS interact to facilitate the processing of manipulable objects, to an extent that depends on individual sensitivity to the social presence of others.
AlsmithA. J. (2021). Bodily structure and body representation. Synthese, 198(3), 2193–2222.
2.
BartoloA.CarlierM.HassainiS.MartinY.CoelloY. (2014). The perception of peripersonal space in right and left brain damage hemiplegic patients. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 3.
3.
BartoloA.CoelloY.EdwardsM. G.DelepoulleS.EndoS.WingA. M. (2014). Contribution of the motor system to the perception of reachable space: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 40, 3807–3817. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12742
4.
BartonT.ConstableM.-D.SparksS.KritikosA. (2021). Self-bias effect: Movement initiation to self-owned property is speeded for both approach and avoidance actions. Psychological Research, 85, 1391–1406.
5.
BassolinoM.FinisguerraA.CanzoneriE.SerinoA.PozzoT. (2015). Dissociating effect of upper limb non-use and overuse on space and body representations. Neuropsychologia, 70, 385–392.
6.
BegganJ. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 229–237.
7.
BelardinelliA.LohmannJ.FarnèA.ButzM. V. (2018). Mental space maps into the future. Cognition, 176, 65–73.
8.
BelkR. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
9.
BergerA.KieferM. (2021). Comparison of different response time outlier exclusion methods: A simulation study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 675558.
10.
BertiA.FrassinettiF. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 415–420.
11.
BertiA.SmaniaN.AllportA. (2001). Coding of far and near space in neglect patients. NeuroImage, 14(1), S98–S102.
12.
BertonattiM.WeymarM.SommerW.FischerM. H. (2021). Reaching out for food: How food incentives modulate peripersonal space perception. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), Article 21.
13.
BiggioM.BisioA.AvanzinoL.RuggeriP.BoveM. (2017). This racket is not mine: The influence of the tool-use on peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia, 103, 54–58.
14.
BirdC. M.BurgessN. (2008). The hippocampus and memory: Insights from spatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(3), 182–194.
15.
BlakemoreS. J.FrithC. (2003). Self-awareness and action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(2), 219–224.
16.
BliniE.DesocheC.SalemmeR.KabilA.Hadj-BouzianeF.FarnèA. (2018). Mind the depth: Visual perception of shapes is better in peripersonal space. Psychological Science, 29(11), 1868–1877.
17.
BogdanovaO. V.BogdanovV. B.DureuxA.FarnèA.Hadj-BouzianeF. (2021). The peripersonal space in a social world. Cortex, 142, 28–46.
18.
BourgeoisJ.FarnèA.CoelloY. (2014). Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. Acta Psychologica, 148, 91–95.
19.
BrozzoliC.MakinT. R.CardinaliL.HolmesN. P.FarnèA. (2012). Peripersonal space: A multisensory interface for body–object interactions. In: The neural bases of multisensory processes. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92879
20.
BufacchiR. J.IannettiG. D. (2018). An action field theory of peripersonal space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(12), 1076–1090.
21.
CaggianoV.FogassiL.RizzolattiG.ThierP.CasileA. (2009). Mirror neurons differentially encode the peripersonal and extrapersonal space of monkeys. Science, 324(5925), 403–406.
22.
CardellicchioP.SinigagliaC.CostantiniM. (2011). The space of affordances: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1369–1372.
23.
CartaudA.CoelloY. (2020). ATHOS: A dATabase of 48 3D Human virtual characters with non-emOtional facial expreSsion for virtual reality. PsyArXi, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/r7fby.
24.
CartaudA.RuggieroG.OttL.IachiniT.CoelloY. (2018). Physiological response to facial expressions in peripersonal space determines interpersonal distance in a social interaction context. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 657.
25.
CléryJ.GuipponiO.OdouardS.WardakC.HamedS. B. (2018). Cortical networks for encoding near and far space in the non-human primate. NeuroImage, 176, 164–178.
26.
CoelloY.BartoloA.AmiriB.DevanneH.HoudayerE.DerambureP. (2008). Perceiving what is reachable depends on motor representations: Evidence from a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. PLOS ONE, 3(8), Article e2862.
27.
CoelloY.BonnotteI. (2013). The mutual roles of action representations and spatial deictics in French language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(11), 2187–2203.
28.
CoelloY.BourgeoisJ.IachiniT. (2012). Embodied perception of reachable space: How do we manage threatening objects?Cognitive Processing, 13(1), 131–135.
29.
CoelloY.CartaudA. (2021). The interrelation between peripersonal action space and interpersonal social space: Psychophysiological evidence and clinical implications. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, Article 92.
30.
CoelloY.QuesqueF.GigliottiM. F.OttL.BruyelleJ. L. (2018). Idiosyncratic representation of peripersonal space depends on the success of one’s own motor actions, but also the successful actions of others!PLOS ONE, 13(5), Article e0196874.
31.
ColbyC. L.DuhamelJ. R. (1996). Spatial representations for action in parietal cortex. Cognitive Brain Research, 5(1-2), 105–115.
32.
ColbyC. L.DuhamelJ. R.GoldbergM. E. (1993). Ventral intraparietal area of the macaque: Anatomic location and visual response properties. Journal of Neurophysiology, 69(3), 902–914.
33.
ConstableM. D.KritikosA.BaylissA. P. (2011). Grasping the concept of personal property. Cognition, 119, 430–437.
34.
ConstableM. D.WelshT. N.HuffmanG.PrattJ. (2019). I before U: Temporal order judgements reveal bias for self-owned objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 589–598.
35.
CorrP. J. (2013). Approach and avoidance behaviour: Multiple systems and their interactions. Emotion Review, 5(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913477507
36.
CostantiniM.AmbrosiniE.ScorolliC.BorghiA. M. (2011). When objects are close to me: Affordances in the peripersonal space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 302–308.
37.
CunninghamS. J.TurkD. J.MacdonaldL. M.MacraeC. N. (2008). Yours or mine? Ownership and memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 312–318.
38.
DavisM. H. (1983). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, Article 85.
39.
DelevoyeY.BartoloA.CoelloY. (2010). Motor representations and the perception of space: Perceptual judgments of the boundary of action space. In GangopadhayN.MadaryM.SpicerF. (Eds.), Perception, action, and consciousness (pp. 217–242). Oxford University Press.
40.
DesebrockC.SuiJ.SpenceC. (2018). Self-reference in action: Arm-movement responses are enhanced in perceptual matching. Acta Psychologica, 190, 258–266.
41.
FarneA.PavaniF.MeneghelloF.LadavasE. (2000). Left tactile extinction following visual stimulation of a rubber hand. Brain, 123(11), 2350–2360.
42.
FiniC.BrassM.CommitteriG. (2015). Social scaling of extrapersonal space: Target objects are judged as closer when the reference frame is a human agent with available movement potentialities. Cognition, 134, 50–56.
43.
FrossardJ.RenaudO. (2021). Permutation tests for regression, ANOVA, and comparison of signals: The permuco package. Journal of Statistical Software, 99, 1–32.
44.
FujiiN.HiharaS.IrikiA. (2007). Dynamic social adaptation of motion-related neurons in primate parietal cortex. PLOS ONE, 2(4), Article e397.
45.
FujiiN.HiharaS.IrikiA. (2008). Social cognition in premotor and parietal cortex. Social Neuroscience, 3(3–4), 250–260.
46.
GigliottiM. F.Soares CoelhoP.CoutinhoJ.CoelloY. (2019). Peripersonal space in social context is modulated by action reward, but differently in males and females. Psychological Research, 85(1), 181–194.
47.
GiletA. L.MellaN.StuderJ.GrühnD.Labouvie-ViefG. (2013). Assessing dispositional empathy in adults: A French validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45(1), 42–48.
48.
GradeS.PesentiM.EdwardsM. G. (2015). Evidence for the embodiment of space perception: Concurrent hand but not arm action moderates reachability and egocentric distance perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 862.
49.
GrazianoM. S.CookeD. F. (2006). Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia, 44(6), 845–859.
50.
GrazianoM. S.GrossC. G. (1993). A bimodal map of space: Somatosensory receptive fields in the macaque putamen with corresponding visual receptive fields. Experimental Brain Research, 97(1), 96–109.
51.
GrazianoM. S.YapG. S.GrossC. G. (1994). Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science, 266(5187), 1054–1057.
52.
GreenhouseS. W.GeisserS. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289823
53.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216.
56.
HenningerF.ShevchenkoY.MertensU. K.KieslichP. J.HilbigB. E. (2020). lab.js: A free, open, online study builder. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.597045
57.
HiroseS.HaguraN.MatsumuraM.NaitoE. (2010). Human rostral dorsal premotor cortex mediates graspability judgment of external objects by evaluating hand motor capability. Brain Research, 1313, 134–142.
58.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
59.
HumphreysG. W.SuiJ. (2015). The salient self: Social saliency effects based on self-bias. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 129–140.
60.
IachiniT.RuggieroG. (2006). Egocentric and allocentric spatial frames of reference: A direct measure. Cognitive Processing, 7(1), 126–127.
61.
IachiniT.RuggieroG.RuotoloF.VinciguerraM. (2014). Motor resources in peripersonal space are intrinsic to spatial encoding: Evidence from motor interference. Acta Psychologica, 153, 20–27.
62.
IachiniT.RuotoloF.VinciguerraM.RuggieroG. (2017). Manipulating time and space: Collision prediction in peripersonal and extrapersonal space. Cognition, 166, 107–117.
63.
JamesW. (1890). The perception of reality. In JamesW. (Ed.), Principles of psychology (pp. 283–324). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kherad-PajouhS.RenaudO. (2015). A general permutation approach for analyzing repeated measures ANOVA and mixed-model designs. Statistical Papers, 56(4), 947–967.
66.
KillgoreW. D.KamimoriG. H. (2020). Multiple caffeine doses maintain vigilance, attention, complex motor sequence expression, and manual dexterity during 77 hours of total sleep deprivation. Neurobiology of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms, 9, Article 100051.
67.
KohlM. (2020). Package MKinfer: Inferential Statistics. R package version 0.7, https://www.stamats.de.
68.
KritikosA.ListerJ.SparksS.SofronoffK.BaylissA.SlaughterV. (2020). To have and to hold: Embodied ownership is established in early childhood. Experimental Brain Research, 238(2), 355–367.
69.
LeBarrA. N.SheddenJ. M. (2017). Psychological ownership: The implicit association between self and already-owned versus newly-owned objects. Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 190–197.
70.
LeclereN. X.SarlegnaF. R.CoelloY.BourdinC. (2021). Opposing force fields induce direction-specific sensorimotor adaptation but a non-specific perceptual shift consistent with a contraction of peripersonal space representation. Experimental Brain Research, 239, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05945-1
71.
MakinT. R.WilfM.SchwartzI.ZoharyE. (2010). Amputees “neglect” the space near their missing hand. Psychological Science, 21(1), 55–57.
72.
MaravitaA.SpenceC.ClarkeK.HusainM.DriverJ. (2000). Vision and touch through the looking glass in a case of crossmodal extinction. NeuroReport, 11(16), 3521–3526.
73.
MillarS. (1994). Understanding and representing space. Theory and evidence from studies with blind and sighted children. Clarendon Press.
74.
MorgadoN.GentazÉ.GuinetÉ.OsiurakF.Palluel-GermainR. (2013). Within reach but not so reachable: Obstacles matter in visual perception of distances. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 462–467.
75.
PhillipsJ. C.WardR. (2002). SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9(4–5), 540–558.
76.
QuesqueF.RuggieroG.MoutaS.SantosJ.IachiniT.CoelloY. (2017). Keeping you at arm’s length: Modifying peripersonal space influences interpersonal distance. Psychological Research, 81(4), 709–720.
77.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/index.html
78.
RatcliffR.McKoonG. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922.
79.
RizzolattiG.ScandolaraC.MatelliM.GentilucciM. (1981). Afferent properties of periarcuate neurons in macaque monkeys. II. Visual responses. Behavioural Brain Research, 2(2), 147–163.
80.
RuggieroG.D’ErricoO.IachiniT. (2016). Development of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations from childhood to elderly age. Psychological Research, 80(2), 259–272.
81.
RuggieroG.RuotoloF.IachiniT. (2009). The role of vision in egocentric and allocentric spatial frames of reference. Cognitive Processing, 10(2), 283–285.
82.
RuggieroG.RuotoloF.OrtiR.RausoB.IachiniT. (2021). Egocentric metric representations in peripersonal space: A bridge between motor resources and spatial memory. British Journal of Psychology, 112(2), 433–454.
83.
SerinoA.NoelJ. P.GalliG.CanzoneriE.MarmaroliP.LissekH.BlankeO. (2015). Body part-centered and full body-centered peripersonal space representations. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1–14.
84.
StrachanJ. W.ConstableM. D.KnoblichG. (2020). It goes with the territory: Ownership across spatial boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(8), 789–797.
85.
SuiJ.HeX.HumphreysG. W. (2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1105–1117.
86.
SymonsC. S.JohnsonB. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394.
87.
TeneggiC.CanzoneriE.di PellegrinoG.SerinoA. (2013). Social modulation of peripersonal space boundaries. Current Biology, 23, 406–411.
88.
TeramotoW. (2018). A behavioral approach to shared mapping of peripersonal space between oneself and others. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–10.
89.
ToddR. M.CunninghamW. A.AndersonA. K.ThompsonE. (2012). Affect-biased attention as emotion regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(7), 365–372.
TruongG.ToddR. M. (2017). SOAP opera: Self as object and agent in prioritizing attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(6), 937–952.
92.
TuckerM.EllisR. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846.
93.
Valdés-ConroyB.RománF. J.HinojosaJ. A.ShorkeyS. P. (2012). So far so good: Emotion in the peripersonal/extrapersonal space. PLOS ONE, 7(11), Article e49162.
94.
WamainY.GabrielliF.CoelloY. (2016). EEG μ rhythm in virtual reality reveals that motor coding of visual objects in peripersonal space is task dependent. Cortex, 74, 20–30.
95.
WeissP. H.MarshallJ. C.ZillesK.FinkG. R. (2003). Are action and perception in near and far space additive or interactive factors?NeuroImage, 18, 837–846.
96.
WittJ. K.ProffittD. R.EpsteinW. (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.
97.
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194.
98.
ZaniniA.PatanéI.BliniE.SalemmeR.KounE.FarnèA.BrozzoliC. (2021). Peripersonal and reaching space differ: Evidence from their spatial extent and multisensory facilitation pattern. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(6), 1894–1905.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
