Visual near space is scaled to parameters of current action plans

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1313-1325

  Kirsch, Wladimir ^a   Kunde, Wilfried ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Action; Embodied cognition; Perception Action coupling; Spatial perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTICIPATION; ARTICLE; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMAN; MALE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ANTICIPATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; MOVEMENT; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOM ALLOCATION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84884972381     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0031074     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13, 370-374. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2002.00466.x
2. Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far space becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 415-420. doi:10.1162/089892900562237
3. Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076-1096. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1076
4. Durgin, F. H., Baird, J. A., Greenburg, M., Russell., R., Shaughnessy, K., & Waymouth, S. (2009). Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 964-969. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.964
5. Farnè, A., & Làdavas, E. (2000). Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following toll use. NeuroReport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research, 11, 1645-1649. doi:10.1097/00001756-200006050-00010
6. Flash, T., & Hogan, N. (1985). The coordination of arm movements: An experimentally confirmed mathematical model. The Journal of Neuroscience, 5, 1688-1703.
7. Franz, V. H., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Bülthoff, H. H., & Fahle, M. (2000). Grasping visual illusions: No evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychological Science, 11, 20-25. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00209
8. Gamberini, L., Seraglia, B., & Priftis, K. (2008). Processing of peripersonal and extrapersonal space using tools: Evidence from visual line bisection in real and virtual environments. Neuropsychologia, 46, 1298-1304. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.12.016
9. Ghahramani, Z., Wolpert, D. M., & Jordan, M. I. (1996). Generalization to local remappings of the visuomotor coordinate transformation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 7085-7096.
10. Gutteling, T. P., Kenemans, J. L., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2011). Grasping preparation enhances orientation change detection. PLoS ONE, 6, e17675. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017675
11. Haffenden, A. M., & Goodale, M. A. (1998). The effect of pictorial illusion on prehension and perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 122-136. doi:10.1162/089892998563824
12. Hamburger, K., & Hansen, T. (2010). Analysis of individual variations in the classical horizontal-vertical illusion. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1045-1052. doi:10.3758/APP.72.4.1045
13. Harris, C. M., & Wolpert, D. M. (1998). Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature, 394, 780-784. doi:10.1038/29528
14. Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
15. Holmes, N. P., Calvert, G. A., & Spence, C. (2004). Extending or projecting peripersonal space with tools? Multisensory interactions highlight only the distal and proximal ends of tools. Neuroscience Letters, 372, 62-67. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.09.024
16. Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2010). Does dorsal processing require central capacity? More evidence from the PRP paradigm. Experimental Brain Research, 203, 89-100. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2211-9
17. Jones, L. A. (1986). Perception of force and weight: Theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 29-42. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.29
18. Kirsch, W., Herbort, O., Butz, M. V., & Kunde, W. (2012). Influence of motor planning on distance perception within the peripersonal space. PLoS ONE, 7, e34880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034880
19. Làdavas, E., & Serino, A. (2008). Action-dependent plasticity in peripersonal space representations. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 1099-1113. doi:10.1080/02643290802359113
20. Linkenauger, S. A., Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2011). Taking a hands-on approach: Apparent grasping ability scales the perception of object size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1432-1441. doi:10.1037/a0024248
21. Longo, M. R., & Lourenco, S. F. (2006). On the nature of near space: Effects of tool use and the transition to far space. Neuropsychologia, 44, 977-981. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.09.003
22. Lourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2009). The plasticity of near space: Evidence for contraction. Cognition, 112, 451-456. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.011
23. Maravita, A., Husain, M., Clarke, K., & Driver, J. (2001). Reaching with a tool extends visual-tactile interactions into far space: Evidence from cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia, 39, 580-585. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00150-0
24. Maravita, A., Spence, C., Kennett, S., & Driver, J. (2002). Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition, 83, B25-B34. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00003-3
25. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110-122. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00008.x
27. Proffitt, D. R. (2008). An action specific approach to spatial perception. In R. L. Klatzky, B. MacWhinney, & M. Behrmann (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action (pp. 177-200). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
28. Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14, 106-112. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01427
29. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 444-474. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.109.4.444
30. Rosenbaum, D. A. (2008). Reaching while walking: Reaching distance costs more than walking distance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1100-1104. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1100
31. Scheerer, E. (1984). Motor theories of cognitive structure: A historical review. In W. Prinz & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognition and motor processes (pp. 77-98). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69382-3_6
32. Shaffer, D. M., & Flint, M. (2011). Escalating slant: Increasing physiological potential does not reduce slant overestimation. Psychological Science, 22, 209-211. doi:10.1177/0956797610393744
33. Twedt, E., Crawford, L. E., & Proffitt, D. R. (2012). Memory for target height is scaled to observer height. Memory & Cognition, 40, 339-351. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0166-0
34. Uno, Y., Kawato, M., & Suzuki, R. (1989). Formation and control of optimal trajectory in human multijoint arm movement. Biological Cybernetics, 61, 89-101. doi:10.1007/BF00204593
35. Van der Heijden, A. H. C., Müsseler, J., & Bridgeman, B. (1999). On the perception of positions. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (J. Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 19-37). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
36. Vishton, P. M., Stephens, N. J., Nelson, L. A., Morra, S. E., Brunick, K. L., & Stevens, J. A. (2007). Planning to reach for an object changes how the reacher perceives it. Psychological Science, 18, 713-719. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01965.x
37. Viviani, P. (2002). Motor competence in the perception of dynamic events: A tutorial. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 406-442). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38. Witt, J. K. (2011a). Tool use influences perceived shape and perceived parallelism, which serve as indirect measure of perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1148-1156. doi:10.1037/a0021933
39. Witt, J. K. (2011b). Action's effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 201-206. doi:10.1177/0963721411408770
40. Witt, J. K., & Dorsch, T. E. (2009). Kicking to bigger uprights: Field goal kicking performance influences perceived size. Perception, 38, 1328-1340. doi:10.1068/p6325
41. Witt, J. K., Linkenauger, S. A., Bakdash, J. Z., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Putting to a bigger hole: Golf performance relates to perceived size. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 581-585. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.3.581
42. Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2005). See the ball, hit the ball: Apparent ball size is correlated with batting average. Psychological Science, 16, 937-938. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01640.x
43. Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1479-1492. doi: 10.1037/a0010781
44. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2004). Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception, 33, 577-590. doi:10.1068/p5090
45. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 880-888. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.880
46. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2010). When and how are spatial perceptions scaled? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1153-1160. doi:10.1037/a0019947
47. Woods, A. J., Philbeck, J. W., Danoff, J. V. (2009). The various perceptions of distance: An alternative view of how effort affects distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1104-1117. doi:10.1037/a0013622