2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107622
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of tool-use observation on metric body representation and peripersonal space

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To assess the implicit perceived dimension of the upper limbs, we adapted the BLT. 32 , 33 , 36 , 49 , 50 , 54 , 55 Participants had to verbally indicate when a moving marker reached the felt position of one of five possible non-visible anatomical landmarks that were: the tip of the index finger, the tip of the annular finger, the internal part of the wrist (the radius styloid), the external part of the wrist (the ulnar styloid) and the elbow joint (the olecranon) (see Supplementary material for further details and the Graphical abstract for a figure of the task). The width or length of the body parts was then computed a posteriori during the data analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To assess the implicit perceived dimension of the upper limbs, we adapted the BLT. 32 , 33 , 36 , 49 , 50 , 54 , 55 Participants had to verbally indicate when a moving marker reached the felt position of one of five possible non-visible anatomical landmarks that were: the tip of the index finger, the tip of the annular finger, the internal part of the wrist (the radius styloid), the external part of the wrist (the ulnar styloid) and the elbow joint (the olecranon) (see Supplementary material for further details and the Graphical abstract for a figure of the task). The width or length of the body parts was then computed a posteriori during the data analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experimental evidence has shown that the body schema [120] and the peripersonal space [102] (for reviews see [76,97]) can be temporarily remapped during active or passive interaction [121] with a tool. This phenomenon was originally observed in monkeys [1] (for a review see [7]), and was later described in brain damaged [8,122] and healthy humans [2,5,120,[123][124][125]. It has been suggested that modifications of the PPS underlying these effects depend on Hebbian plasticity [126][127][128], i.e., connectivity transformations driven by statistical associations of multisensory inputs from the environment.…”
Section: Incorporating Tools In the Ppsmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The difference in reaction time in detecting a tactile stimulus on a body spot [11,12] when visual [2] or auditory stimuli [3][4][5]68] are presented on an incongruent location on the body.…”
Section: Crossmodal Congruency Effect (Cce)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Stimuli were displayed using E‐Prime V2.0 software (Psychology Software Tools Inc.) at the center of a 21‐inch Sony CRT computer screen. Visual stimuli consisted of four schematic configurations containing three red dots (4 cm in diameter) on a black background and differed only for the spatial arrangement of the dots (Figure 1a; Buiatti et al., 2019; Galigani, Castellani, et al, 2020; Reid et al., 2017; Ronga et al., 2018). In the face‐like stimulus, the dots composed a downward pointing triangle, and they were placed in the appropriate location for the eyes and the mouth to form an upright (canonical) face‐like pattern resembling a schematic human face (henceforth referred to as the “Upright” configuration).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%