Abstract

Exploring the world through touch requires the integration of internal (e.g., anatomical) and external (e.g., spatial) reference frames - you only know what you touch when you know where your hands are in space. The deficit observed in tactile temporal-order judgements when the hands are crossed over the midline provides one tool to explore this integration. We used foot pedals and required participants to focus on either the hand that was stimulated first (an anatomical bias condition) or the location of the hand that was stimulated first (a spatiotopic bias condition). Spatiotopic-based responses produce a larger crossed-hands deficit, presumably by focusing observers on the external reference frame. In contrast, anatomical-based responses focus the observer on the internal reference frame and produce a smaller deficit. This manipulation thus provides evidence that observers can change the relative weight given to each reference frame. We quantify this effect using a probabilistic model that produces a population estimate of the relative weight given to each reference frame. We show that a spatiotopic bias can result in either a larger external weight (Experiment 1) or a smaller internal weight (Experiment 2) and provide an explanation of when each one would occur.

Highlights

  • Locating tactile sensations requires knowing where our hands are in space

  • We observed a larger crossed-hands deficit when using a spatiotopic response demand compared to an anatomical response demand

  • A spatiotopic response demand resulted in a greater external weight and a slightly lower internal weight than the anatomical response demand

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Locating tactile sensations requires knowing where our hands are in space. Two reference frames are used to locate a touch: the internal, anatomical, reference frame and the external, spatial, reference frame. The relative contribution of each reference frame can be measured using a tactile temporal-order judgement (TOJ) task (Azañón and Soto-Faraco, 2007; Azañón et al, 2015; Azañón et al, 2016; Badde et al, 2016; Cadieux and Shore, 2013; Cadieux et al, 2010; Craig and Belser, 2006; Crollen et al, 2017; Crollen et al, 2019; Kóbor et al, 2006; Pagel et al, 2009; Roberts and Humphreys, 2008; Röder et al, 2004; Schicke and Röder, 2006; Shore et al, 2002; Unwalla et al, 2020; Wada et al, 2014; Yamamoto and Kitazawa, 2001) This unspeeded task requires participants to report which of two vibrations applied to each of their hands occurred first, with their hands uncrossed and crossed. Both the conflict and integration models predict that emphasizing the external reference frame will increase the size of the deficit whereas the non-integration model makes the opposite prediction

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.