Event‐related potential evidence for a dynamic (re‐)weighting of somatotopic and external coordinates of touch during visual–tactile interactions

Ley, Pia; Steinberg, Ulf; Hanganu‐Opatz, Ileana L.; Röder, Brigitte

doi:10.1111/ejn.12896

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One key result that could lend support to the serial viewpoint has been that a tactile cue stimulus on the hand attracts attention in anatomical space for short cue–target time intervals, but in external space for long cue–target intervals (Azañón & Soto-Faraco, 2008 ). However, this result can as well be explained by assuming that the weighting of anatomical and external reference frames, rather than their availability, varied over time (Azañón & Soto-Faraco, 2008 ; see also Ley, Steinberg, Hanganu-Opatz, & Röder, 2015 ).…”

Section: Concurrent Use Of Skin-based and External Reference Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards explaining spatial touch perception: Weighted integration of multiple location codes

Badde

Heed

2016

Cognitive Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Touch is bound to the skin – that is, to the boundaries of the body. Yet, the activity of neurons in primary somatosensory cortex just mirrors the spatial distribution of the sensors across the skin. To determine the location of a tactile stimulus on the body, the body's spatial layout must be considered. Moreover, to relate touch to the external world, body posture has to be evaluated. In this review, we argue that posture is incorporated, by default, for any tactile stimulus. However, the relevance of the external location and, thus, its expression in behaviour, depends on various sensory and cognitive factors. Together, these factors imply that an external representation of touch dominates over the skin-based, anatomical when our focus is on the world rather than on our own body. We conclude that touch localization is a reconstructive process that is adjusted to the context while maintaining all available spatial information.

show abstract

Section: Concurrent Use Of Skin-based and External Reference Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards explaining spatial touch perception: Weighted integration of multiple location codes

Badde

Heed

2016

Cognitive Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, we took a novel approach to using ERP methods in the study of spatial factors in tactile processing. Studies using postural manipulations such as hand crossing often employ particular attentional demands (e.g., Eimer, Forster, & Van Velzen, ; Heed & Röder, ), although this is not the case for all studies (Ley, Steinbrrg, Hanganu‐Opatz, & Röder, ; Rigato et al, ). In the current study, we recorded mismatch negativity (MMN) and P300 responses to stimulation of different body parts using an oddball paradigm with no specific postural manipulations or specific attentional demands.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using somatosensory mismatch responses as a window into somatotopic processing of tactile stimulation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brain responses to tactile stimulation have often been studied through the examination of ERPs elicited to touch on the body surface. Here, we examined two factors potentially modulating the amplitude of the somatosensory mismatch negativity (sMMN) and P300 responses elicited by touch to pairs of body parts: (a) the distance between the representation of these body parts in somatosensory cortex, and (b) the physical distances between the stimulated points on the body surface. The sMMN and the P300 response were elicited by tactile stimulation in two oddball protocols. One protocol leveraged a discontinuity in cortical somatotopic organization, and involved stimulation of either the neck or the hand in relation to stimulation of the lip. The other protocol involved stimulation to the third or fifth finger in relation to the second finger. The neck-lip pairing resulted in significantly larger sMMN responses (with shorter latencies) than the hand-lip pairing, whereas the reverse was true for the amplitude of the P300. Mean sMMN amplitude and latency did not differ between finger pairings. However, larger P300 responses were elicited to stimulation of the fifth finger than the third finger. These results suggest that, for certain combinations of body parts, early automatic somatosensory mismatch responses may be influenced by distance between the cortical representations of these body parts, whereas the later P300 response may be more influenced by the distance between stimulated body parts on the body surface. Future investigations can shed more light on this novel suggestion.

show abstract

“…Tactile stimuli are initially represented in skin-based, anatomical coordinates and are then transformed into an external reference frame by integration of posture information (for recent reviews, see Heed et al, 2015). After remapping, both spatial codes are retained (Buchholz, Jensen, & Medendorp, 2011Heed & Röder, 2010;Ley et al, 2015) and probably integrated to estimate tactile location Cadieux, Barnett-Cowan, & Shore, 2010;Shore et al, 2002). When the hands are crossed, anatomical and external codes are in conflict.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relative dominance of anatomical or external tactile codes varies over time. Shortly after their application, tactile stimuli are coded in an anatomical reference frame, whereas later on external tactile codes seem to be weighted higher (Azañón & Soto-Faraco, 2008;Brandes & Heed, 2015;Ley et al, 2015). Similarly, the reference frame of tactile apparent motion might be changing with the time interval between stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The motion projection hypothesis, and thus the interpretation of Experiment 1, assume that for short SOAs tactile apparent motion is coded in anatomical coordinates. However, studies probing the time course of tactile remapping have indicated that external coding of touch starts to dominate relative to anatomical coding 60 to 190 ms after stimulus onset (Azañón & Soto-Faraco, 2008;Brandes & Heed, 2015;Ley, Steinberg, Hanganu-Opatz, & Röder, 2015;Overvliet, Azañón, & Soto-Faraco, 2011). Thus, at longer SOAs, tactile apparent-motion signals might be coded with respect to external space.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Task-irrelevant sounds influence both temporal order and apparent-motion judgments about tactile stimuli applied to crossed and uncrossed hands

Badde

Röder

Bruns

2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that judgments about the temporal-spatial order of successive tactile stimuli depend on the perceived direction of apparent motion between them. Here we manipulated tactile apparent-motion percepts by presenting a brief, task-irrelevant auditory stimulus temporally in-between pairs of tactile stimuli. The tactile stimuli were applied one to each hand, with varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Participants reported the location of the first stimulus (temporal order judgments: TOJs) while adopting both crossed and uncrossed hand postures, so we could scrutinize skin-based, anatomical, and external reference frames. With crossed hands, the sound improved TOJ performance at short (≤300 ms) and at long (>300 ms) SOAs. When the hands were uncrossed, the sound induced a decrease in TOJ performance, but only at short SOAs. A second experiment confirmed that the auditory stimulus indeed modulated tactile apparent motion perception under these conditions. Perceived apparent motion directions were more ambiguous with crossed than with uncrossed hands, probably indicating competing spatial codes in the crossed posture. However, irrespective of posture, the additional sound tended to impair potentially anatomically coded motion direction discrimination at a short SOA of 80 ms, but it significantly enhanced externally coded apparent motion perception at a long SOA of 500 ms. Anatomically coded motion signals imply incorrect TOJ responses with crossed hands, but correct responses when the hands are uncrossed; externally coded motion signals always point toward the correct TOJ response. Thus, taken together, these results suggest that apparent-motion signals are likely taken into account when tactile temporal-spatial information is reconstructed.

show abstract

Event‐related potential evidence for a dynamic (re‐)weighting of somatotopic and external coordinates of touch during visual–tactile interactions

Cited by 6 publications

References 26 publications

Towards explaining spatial touch perception: Weighted integration of multiple location codes

Towards explaining spatial touch perception: Weighted integration of multiple location codes

Using somatosensory mismatch responses as a window into somatotopic processing of tactile stimulation

Task-irrelevant sounds influence both temporal order and apparent-motion judgments about tactile stimuli applied to crossed and uncrossed hands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About