Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content
Log in

Embodied perception of reachable space: how do we manage threatening objects?

  • Short Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed at determining whether the size of reachable space is affected by the level of danger of some everyday manipulable objects. Two possibilities are examined: Dangerous objects affect the size of reachable space because of long-term semantic knowledge of their potential hurtful value or the on-line relation between objects’ dangerous attributes and the body. The experimental paradigm combined the danger value (dangerous/not dangerous) and the orientation of objects (e.g. pointing away from/towards the perceiver). Reachability judgments measured the size of peripersonal space, and perception of objects’ danger was estimated through questionnaires. Results revealed that, whatever the estimated level of objects’ danger, the extent of peripersonal space was reduced when the threatening part of dangerous objects was oriented towards participants, not when oriented away. This suggests that the characteristics of the here and now body-objects interaction are crucial in affecting the boundary of peripersonal space.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Barsalou LW (2008) Grounded cognition. Ann Rev Psychol 59:617–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartolo A, Coello Y, Delepoulle S, Edwards MG, Endo S, Wing AM (2009) Neurobiological basis of reachability judgement: an fMRI study, In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on functional mapping of the human brain mapping, San Francisco, USA

  • Coello Y, Delevoye-Turrell Y (2007) Embodiment, space categorisation and action. Conscious Cogn 16:667–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini M, Ambrosini E, Tieri G, Sinigaglia C, Committeri G (2012) Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Exp Brain Res 207:95–103. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2435-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delevoye-Turrell Y, Bartolo A, Coello Y (2010) Motor representation and the perception of space. In: Gangopadhyay N (ed) Perception, Action and Consciousness. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosey MA, Meisels M (1969) Personal space and self-protection. J Pers Soc Psychol 11:93–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Felipe NJ, Sommer R (1966) Invasions of personal space. Soc Probl 14:206–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer MH, Zwaan RA (2008) Embodied language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol 61:825–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graziano MSA, Cooke DF (2006) Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia 44:845–859

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes NP, Spence C (2004) The body schema and the multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cogn Process 5(2):94–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel B (2009) Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychol Res 73:512–526. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iachini T (2011) Mental imagery and embodied cognition. J Ment Imagery 35(4–5):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod M (2006) Motor cognition: what actions tell the self. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Làdavas E, Serino A (2008) Action-dependent plasticity in peripersonal space representations. Cognitive Neuropsych 25:1099–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner AD, Goodale MA (1995) The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Previc FH (1998) The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychol Bull 124:123–164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V (1997) The space around us. Science 277:190–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stein BE, Meredith MA (1993) The merging of the senses. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt JK, Proffitt DR (2008) Action-specific influences on distance perception: a role for motor simulation. J Exp Psychol Human 34:1479–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Lucie Barube for her help in collecting and analysing the data. The research was supported by grants from Charles de Gaulle-University Lille 3 and ANR CONTINT from French Ministry of Research.

Conflict of interest

This supplement was not sponsored by outside commercial interests. It was funded entirely by ECONA, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Roma, Italy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yann Coello.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coello, Y., Bourgeois, J. & Iachini, T. Embodied perception of reachable space: how do we manage threatening objects?. Cogn Process 13 (Suppl 1), 131–135 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0470-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0470-z

Keywords

Navigation