An action with an object can be accomplished only if we encode the position of the object with respect to our body (i.e., egocentrically) and/or to another element in the environment (i.e., allocentrically). However, some actions with the objects are directed towards our body, such as brushing our teeth, and others away from the body, such as writing. Objects can be near the body, that is within arm reaching, or far from the body, that is outside arm reaching. The aim of this study was to verify if the direction of use of the objects influences the way we represent their position in both near and far space. Objects typically used towards (TB) or away from the body (AB) were presented in near or far space and participants had to judge whether an object was closer to them (i.e., egocentric judgement) or closer to another object (i.e., allocentric judgement). Results showed that egocentric judgements on TB objects were more accurate in near than in far space. Moreover, allocentric judgements on AB objects were less accurate than egocentric judgements in near space but not in far space. These results are discussed with respect to the different roles that visuo-motor and visuo-spatial mechanisms play in near space and far space, respectively.
AdamJ. J.Bovend’EerdtT. J. H.SchuhmannT.SackA. T. (2016). Allocentric coding in ventral and dorsal routes during real-time reaching: Evidence from imaging-guided multi-site brain stimulation. Behavioural Brain Research, 300, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.12.018
2.
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(12), 3807–3817. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12742
3.
BatistaG. E.MonardM. C. (2002). A study of K-nearest neighbour as an imputation method. His, 87(251–260), 48.
4.
BertiA.FrassinettiF. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562237
5.
BrozzoliC.MakinT. R.CardinaliL.HolmesN. P.FarneA. (2011). Peripersonal space: A multisensory interface for body-object interactions.
6.
BrozzoliC.MakinT. R.CardinaliL.HolmesN. P.FarneA. (2011) Peripersonal space: a multisensory interface for body-object interactions. In: MurrayM. M.WallaceM. T. (eds.) The neural bases of multisensory processes. Frontiers in Neuroscience. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 449-466. ISBN 978143981214
7.
BuxbaumL. J.Johnson-FreyS. H.Bartlett-WilliamsM. (2005). Deficient internal models for planning hand–object interactions in apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 43(6), 917–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.09.006
8.
CaggianoV.FogassiL.RizzolattiG.ThierP.CasileA. (2009). Mirror neurons differentially encode the peripersonal and extrapersonal space of monkeys. Science, 324(5925), 403–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1166818
CardinaliL.FrassinettiF.BrozzoliC.UrquizarC.RoyA. C.FarnèA. (2009). Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Current Biology, 19(12), R478–R479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.009
11.
ChaoL. L.MartinA. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12(4), 478–484. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0635
12.
ChenY.MonacoS.ByrneP.YanX.HenriquesD. Y.CrawfordJ. D. (2014). Allocentric versus egocentric representation of remembered reach targets in human cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(37), 12515–12526. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1445-14.2014
13.
CoelloY.IachiniT. (2015). Embodied perception of objects and people in space. In CoelloY.FischerM. H. (Eds.), Perceptual and emotional embodiment: Foundations of embodied cognition (pp. 198–220). Routledge.
14.
CommitteriG.GalatiG.ParadisA. L.PizzamiglioL.BerthozA.LeBihanD. (2004). Reference frames for spatial cognition: Different brain areas are involved in viewer-, object-, and landmark-centered judgments about object location. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(9), 1517–1535. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929042568550
15.
CookeD. F.GrazianoM. S. (2004). Sensorimotor integration in the precentral gyrus: Polysensory neurons and defensive movements. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91(4), 1648–1660. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00955.2003
16.
CostantiniM.AmbrosiniE.TieriG.SinigagliaC.CommitteriG. (2010). Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Experimental Brain Research, 207(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2435-8
17.
CousineauD.ChartierS. (2010). Outliers detection and treatment: A review. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 58–67.
18.
CroweD. A.AverbeckB. B.ChafeeM. V. (2008). Neural ensemble decoding reveals a correlate of viewer-to object-centered spatial transformation in monkey parietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(20), 5218–5228. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5105-07.2008
FarnèA.DemattèM. L.LàdavasE. (2005). Neuropsychological evidence of modular organization of the near peripersonal space. Neurology, 65(11), 1754–1758. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000187121.30480.09
21.
FeigenbaumJ. D.MorrisR. G. (2004). Allocentric versus egocentric spatial memory after unilateral temporal lobectomy in humans. Neuropsychology, 18(3), 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.18.3.462
GalatiG.CommitteriG.SanesJ. N.PizzamiglioL. (2001). Spatial coding of visual and somatic sensory information in body-centred coordinates. European Journal of Neuroscience, 14(4), 737–746.
25.
GalatiG.LobelE.VallarG.BerthozA.PizzamiglioL.Le BihanD. (2000). The neural basis of egocentric and allocentric coding of space in humans: A functional magnetic resonance study. Experimental Brain Research, 133(2), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210000375
26.
GoldenbergG. (1995). Imitating gestures and manipulating a mannikin—The representation of the human body in ideomotor apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 33(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(94)00104-W
GraftonS. T.FaggA. H.WoodsR. P.ArbibM. A. (1996). Functional anatomy of pointing and grasping in humans. Cerebral Cortex, 6(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/6.2.226
29.
HalsbandU.SchmittJ.WeyersM.BinkofskiF.GrütznerG.FreundH. J. (2001). Recognition and imitation of pantomimed motor acts after unilateral parietal and premotor lesions: A perspective on apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 39(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00088-9
30.
HartleyT.MaguireE. A.SpiersH. J.BurgessN. (2003). The well-worn route and the path less traveled: Distinct neural bases of route following and wayfinding in humans. Neuron, 37(5), 877–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00095-3
31.
IachiniT.RuggieroG. (2006). Egocentric and allocentric spatial frames of reference: A direct measure. Cognitive Processing, 7, 126–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0100-8
32.
IachiniT.RuggieroG.RuotoloF.VinciguerraM. (2014). Motor resources in peripersonal space are intrinsic to spatial encoding: Evidence from motor interference. Acta Psychologica, 153, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.09.001
33.
IariaG.PetridesM.DagherA.PikeB.BohbotV. D. (2003). Cognitive strategies dependent on the hippocampus and caudate nucleus in human navigation: Variability and change with practice. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(13), 5945–5952. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-13-05945.2003
KesnerR. P. (2000). Subregional analysis of mnemonic functions of the prefrontal cortex in the rat. Psychobiology, 28(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03331980
36.
KonenC. S.KastnerS. (2008). Two hierarchically organized neural systems for object information in human visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 11(2), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2036
37.
LesourdM.BudriesiC.OsiurakF.NichelliP. F.BartoloA. (2019). Mechanical knowledge does matter to tool use even when assessed with a non-production task: Evidence from left brain-damaged patients. Journal of Neuropsychology, 13(2), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12140
38.
MakinT. R.HolmesN. P.EhrssonH. H. (2008). On the other hand: Dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behavioural Brain Research, 191(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.02.041
39.
MakinT. R.HolmesN. P.ZoharyE. (2007). Is that near my hand? Multisensory representation of peripersonal space in human intraparietal sulcus. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(4), 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3653-06.2007
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324.
42.
McNamaraT. P.RumpB.WernerS. (2003). Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 589–595. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196519
43.
MillarS. (1994). Understanding and representing space: Theory and evidence from studies with blind and sighted children. Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
PaillardJ. (1991). Motor and representational framing of space. In PaillardJ. (Ed.), Brain and space (pp. 163–182). Oxford University Press.
50.
PeruginiM.GallucciM.CostantiniG. (2018). A practical primer to power analysis for simple experimental designs. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1): 20, 1–23. http://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.181
RizzolattiG.MatelliM. (2003). Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: Anatomy and functions. Experimental Brain Research, 153(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1588-0
53.
RizzolattiG.ScandolaraC.MatelliM.GentilucciM. (1981). Afferent properties of periarcuate neurons in macaque monkeys. II. Visual responses. Behavioural Brain Research, 2(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(81)90053-X
54.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12467
55.
RuotoloF.IachiniT.PostmaA.van der HamI. J. (2011). Frames of reference and categorical and coordinate spatial relations: A hierarchical organisation. Experimental Brain Research, 214, 587–595.
56.
RuotoloF.IachiniT.RuggieroG.ScottodiTellaG.OttL.BartoloA. (2021). The role of mental imagery in pantomimes of actions towards and away from the body. Psychological Research, 85(4), 1408–1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01359-4
57.
RuotoloF.IachiniT.RuggieroG.van der HamI. J.PostmaA. (2016). Frames of reference and categorical/coordinate spatial relations in a “what was where” task. Experimental Brain Research, 234(9), 2687–2696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4672-y
58.
RuotoloF.RuggieroG.ArabiaT. P.OttL.CoelloY.BartoloA.IachiniT. (2022). Representational processes of actions toward and away from the body. Cognitive Science, 469(9), e13192.
59.
RuotoloF.RuggieroG.RaemaekersM.IachiniT.van der HamI. J. M.FracassoA.PostmaA. (2019). Neural correlates of egocentric and allocentric frames of reference combined with metric and non-metric spatial relations. Neuroscience, 409, 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.04.021
60.
RuotoloF.van der HamI.PostmaA.RuggieroG.IachiniT. (2015). How coordinate and categorical spatial relations combine with egocentric and allocentric reference frames in a motor task: Effects of delay and stimuli characteristics. Behavioural Brain Research, 284, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.02.021
Scotto di TellaG.RuotoloF.RuggieroG.IachiniT.BartoloA. (2021). Towards and away from the body: The relevance of the direction of use in the coding of object-related actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(7), 1225–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021821994711
63.
SnyderL. H.GrieveK. L.BrotchieP.AndersenR. A. (1998). Separate body-and world-referenced representations of visual space in parietal cortex. Nature, 394(6696), 887–891. https://doi.org/10.1038/29777
64.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830
65.
VallarG.LobelE.GalatiG.BerthozA.PizzamiglioL.Le BihanD. (1999). A fronto-parietal system for computing the egocentric spatial frame of reference in humans. Experimental Brain Research, 124(3), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050624
66.
Van ElkM.van SchieH.BekkeringH. (2014). Action semantics: A unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(2), 220–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.005
67.
WamainY.PluciennickaE.KalénineS. (2015). A saw is first identified as an object used on wood: ERP evidence for temporal differences between thematic and functional similarity relations. Neuropsychologia, 71, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.02.034
68.
ZaehleT.JordanK.WüstenbergT.BaudewigJ.DechentP.MastF. W. (2007). The neural basis of the egocentric and allocentric spatial frame of reference. Brain Research, 1137, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.044
69.
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01942-9
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.
