Spatial representations of objects used away and towards the body: The effect of near and far space

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Away from the body towards the body peripersonal and extrapersonal space egocentric and allocentric frames of reference

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adam

J. J.

Bovend’Eerdt

T. J. H.

Schuhmann

Sack

A. 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

Bartolo

Coello

Edwards

M. G.

Delepoulle

Endo

Wing

A. 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

Batista

G. E.

Monard

M. C.

(2002). A study of K-nearest neighbour as an imputation method. His, 87(251–260), 48.

Berti

Frassinetti

(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

Brozzoli

Makin

T. R.

Cardinali

Holmes

N. P.

Farne

(2011). Peripersonal space: A multisensory interface for body-object interactions.

Brozzoli

Makin

T. R.

Cardinali

Holmes

N. P.

Farne

(2011) Peripersonal space: a multisensory interface for body-object interactions. In: Murray

M. M.

Wallace

M. T.

(eds.) The neural bases of multisensory processes. Frontiers in Neuroscience. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 449-466. ISBN 978143981214

Buxbaum

L. J.

Johnson-Frey

S. H.

Bartlett-Williams

(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

Caggiano

Fogassi

Rizzolatti

Thier

Casile

(2009). Mirror neurons differentially encode the peripersonal and extrapersonal space of monkeys. Science, 324(5925), 403–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1166818

Cardellicchio

Sinigaglia

Costantini

(2011). The space of affordances: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1369–1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.021

10.

Cardinali

Frassinetti

Brozzoli

Urquizar

Roy

A. C.

Farnè

(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.

Chao

L. L.

Martin

(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.

Chen

Monaco

Byrne

Yan

Henriques

D. Y.

Crawford

J. 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.

Coello

Iachini

(2015). Embodied perception of objects and people in space. In Coello

Fischer

M. H.

(Eds.), Perceptual and emotional embodiment: Foundations of embodied cognition (pp. 198–220). Routledge.

14.

Committeri

Galati

Paradis

A. L.

Pizzamiglio

Berthoz

LeBihan

(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.

Cooke

D. F.

Graziano

M. 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.

Costantini

Ambrosini

Tieri

Sinigaglia

Committeri

(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.

Cousineau

Chartier

(2010). Outliers detection and treatment: A review. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 58–67.

18.

Crowe

D. A.

Averbeck

B. B.

Chafee

M. 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

19.

di Pellegrino

Làdavas

. (2015). Peripersonal space in the brain. Neuropsychologia, 66, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.11.011

20.

Farnè

Demattè

M. L.

Làdavas

(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.

Feigenbaum

J. D.

Morris

R. 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

22.

Ferri

Riggio

Gallese

Costantini

(2011). Objects and their nouns in peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia, 49(13), 3519–3524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.09.001

23.

Fogassi

Luppino

(2005). Motor functions of the parietal lobe. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15(6), 626–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.10.015

24.

Galati

Committeri

Sanes

J. N.

Pizzamiglio

(2001). Spatial coding of visual and somatic sensory information in body-centred coordinates. European Journal of Neuroscience, 14(4), 737–746.

25.

Galati

Lobel

Vallar

Berthoz

Pizzamiglio

Le Bihan

(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.

Goldenberg

(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

27.

Goldenberg

Karnath

H. O.

(2006). The neural basis of imitation is body part specific. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(23), 6282–6287. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0638-06.2006

28.

Grafton

S. T.

Fagg

A. H.

Woods

R. P.

Arbib

M. 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.

Halsband

Schmitt

Weyers

Binkofski

Grützner

Freund

H. 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.

Hartley

Maguire

E. A.

Spiers

H. J.

Burgess

(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.

Iachini

Ruggiero

(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.

Iachini

Ruggiero

Ruotolo

Vinciguerra

(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.

Iaria

Petrides

Dagher

Pike

Bohbot

V. 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

34.

Johnson-Frey

S. H.

(2004). The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002

35.

Kesner

R. 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.

Konen

C. S.

Kastner

(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.

Lesourd

Budriesi

Osiurak

Nichelli

P. F.

Bartolo

(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.

Makin

T. R.

Holmes

N. P.

Ehrsson

H. 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.

Makin

T. R.

Holmes

N. P.

Zohary

(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

40.

Maravita

Iriki

(2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.008

41.

Mathôt

Schreij

Theeuwes

(2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324.

42.

McNamara

T. P.

Rump

Werner

(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.

Millar

(1994). Understanding and representing space: Theory and evidence from studies with blind and sighted children. Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.

44.

Milner

A. D.

(1995). Cerebral correlates of visual awareness. Neuropsychologia, 33(9), 1117–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(95)00052-5

45.

Milner

A. D.

Goodale

M. A.

(2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46(3), 774–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.005

46.

Nadel

Hardt

(2004). The spatial brain. Neuropsychology, 18(3), 473–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.18.3.473

47.

Oldfield

R. C.

(1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4

48.

Osiurak

Federico

(2021). Four ways of (mis-) conceiving embodiment in tool use. Synthese, 199(1), 3853–3879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02960-1

49.

Paillard

(1991). Motor and representational framing of space. In Paillard

(Ed.), Brain and space (pp. 163–182). Oxford University Press.

50.

Perugini

Gallucci

Costantini

(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

51.

Previc

F. H.

(1998). The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.123

52.

Rizzolatti

Matelli

(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.

Rizzolatti

Scandolara

Matelli

Gentilucci

(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.

Ruggiero

Ruotolo

Orti

Rauso

Iachini

(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.

Ruotolo

Iachini

Postma

van der Ham

I. J.

(2011). Frames of reference and categorical and coordinate spatial relations: A hierarchical organisation. Experimental Brain Research, 214, 587–595.

56.

Ruotolo

Iachini

Ruggiero

Scotto

Tella

Ott

Bartolo

(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.

Ruotolo

Iachini

Ruggiero

van der Ham

I. J.

Postma

(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.

Ruotolo

Ruggiero

Arabia

T. P.

Ott

Coello

Bartolo

Iachini

(2022). Representational processes of actions toward and away from the body. Cognitive Science, 469(9), e13192.

59.

Ruotolo

Ruggiero

Raemaekers

Iachini

van der Ham

I. J. M.

Fracasso

Postma

(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.

Ruotolo

van der Ham

Postma

Ruggiero

Iachini

(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

61.

Save

Poucet

(2000). Hippocampal-parietal cortical interactions in spatial cognition. Hippocampus, 10(4), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-1063(2000)10:4<491::AID-HIPO16>3.0.CO;2-0

62.

Scotto di Tella

Ruotolo

Ruggiero

Iachini

Bartolo

(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.

Snyder

L. H.

Grieve

K. L.

Brotchie

Andersen

R. 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.

Tucker

Ellis

(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.

Vallar

Lobel

Galati

Berthoz

Pizzamiglio

Le Bihan

(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 Elk

van Schie

Bekkering

. (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.

Wamain

Pluciennicka

Kalénine

(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.

Zaehle

Jordan

Wüstenberg

Baudewig

Dechent

Mast

F. 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.

Zanini

Patané

Blini

Salemme

Koun

Farnè

Brozzoli

(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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB