Taking someone else’s spatial perspective: Natural stance or effortful decentring?

Arnold, Gabriel; Spence, Charles; Auvray, Malika

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.006

Cited by 34 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such percentages are congruent with data from Natsoulas and Dubanoski [27], showing that 70% of the participants preferentially used a first-person perspective for letters drawn on their forehead, whereas 13% used this strategy for letters drawn on the back of their head. Overall, our results agree with previous studies for letters drawn manually by an experimenter [23,27] or automatically with a mechanical device [58]. We note that the fact that an experimenter, instead of a mechanical device drawing letters on the participant’s skin may have increased the likelihood that participants used a third-person perspective.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…We adapted a tactile perception task referred to in the literature as a “graphaesthesia” task. The task consists of drawing ambiguous letters (such as d, b, p and q) on the participant’s forehead directly with the experimenter’s finger [57], a cotton bud [23], or a mechanical device [58]. Participants may perceive letters drawn on their forehead from an egocentric, first-person perspective (e.g., they perceive the letter “d” after the letter “b” is drawn on their forehead) or from a disembodied, third-person perspective (e.g., they perceive the letter “d” after the letter “d” is drawn) (reviewed in [59]).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anchoring the Self to the Body in Bilateral Vestibular Failure

Deroualle

Toupet²,

Nechel

et al. 2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent findings suggest that vestibular information plays a significant role in anchoring the self to the body. Out-of-body experiences of neurological origin are frequently associated with vestibular sensations, and galvanic vestibular stimulation in healthy participants anchors the self to the body. Here, we provide the first objective measures of anchoring the self to the body in chronic bilateral vestibular failure (BVF). We compared 23 patients with idiopathic BVF to 23 healthy participants in a series of experiments addressing several aspects of visuo-spatial perspective taking and embodiment. In Experiment 1, participants were involved in a virtual “dot-counting task” from their own perspective or the perspective of a distant avatar, to measure implicit and explicit perspective taking, respectively. In both groups, response times increased similarly when the avatar’s and participant’s viewpoint differed, for both implicit and explicit perspective taking. In Experiment 2, participants named ambiguous letters (such as “b” or “q”) traced on their forehead that could be perceived from an internal or external perspective. The frequency of perceiving ambiguous letters from an internal perspective was similar in both groups. In Experiment 3, participants completed a questionnaire measuring the experienced self/body and self/environment “closeness”. Both groups reported a similar embodied experience. Altogether, our data show that idiopathic BVF does not change implicit and explicit perspective taking nor subjective anchoring of the self to the body. Our negative findings offer insight into the multisensory mechanisms of embodiment. Only acute peripheral vestibular disorders and neurological disorders in vestibular brain areas (characterized by strong multisensory conflicts) may evoke disembodied experiences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchoring the Self to the Body in Bilateral Vestibular Failure

Deroualle

Toupet²,

Nechel

et al. 2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A question that one might want to ask at this point, then, is why it is that rear auditory space has been neglected by those working in the field of attention research (if not auditory localization) for so long (see Spence & Driver, ). Who knows, perhaps it is because the space behind us tends to fall outside of our conscious awareness, given that we all, in some sense, ‘see’ forward (Krech & Crutchfield, ; Arnold et al ., )? As we will see below, though, this neglect (from researchers interested in attention) is unfortunate given that there are some interesting questions to be addressed around how the map of rear auditory space is constructed, given vision's important role in calibrating spatial hearing in frontal space.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to sounds from unseen locations: crossmodal attentional orienting in response to sounds presented from the rear

Spence

Lee

Stoep

2017

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, most of the research on spatial attention has focused on probing people's responses to stimuli presented in frontal space. That is, few researchers have attempted to assess what happens in the space that is currently unseen (essentially rear space). In a sense, then, 'out of sight' is, very much, 'out of mind'. In this review, we highlight what is presently known about the perception and processing of sensory stimuli (focusing on sounds) whose source is not currently visible. We briefly summarize known differences in the localizability of sounds presented from different locations in 3D space, and discuss the consequences for the crossmodal attentional and multisensory perceptual interactions taking place in various regions of space. The latest research now clearly shows that the kinds of crossmodal interactions that take place in rear space are very often different in kind from those that have been documented in frontal space. Developing a better understanding of how people respond to unseen sound sources in naturalistic environments by integrating findings emerging from multiple fields of research will likely lead to the design of better warning signals in the future. This review highlights the need for neuroscientists interested in spatial attention to spend more time researching what happens (in terms of the covert and overt crossmodal orienting of attention) in rear space.

show abstract

“…Costantini, Committeri, & Sinigaglia, 2011) albeit it is hotly debated to what extent such process is automatic or rather effortful (e.g. Arnold, Spence, & Auvray, 2016;Cole, Atkinson, Le, & Smith, 2016)). Such dyadic perspective exists not only for the space around us, but also for our own body and self, linked to the perception of the self as a subject ("I") or as an object ("me").…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, the task involves writing and reading, which is a special situation that strongly involves communicative and social aspects, which are mostly not controlled for (see e.g. Arnold et al, 2016;Hass, 1984 for exceptions). Participants might thus more or less explicitly take into account the experimenter's perspective to solve the task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minding gaps on the skin: Opposite bisection biases on forehead and back of one’s head

Lenggenhager

Busch

Brugger

2016

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans perceive the world from an egocentric perspective, while being able to mentally take a third person's perspective. Graphesthesia tasks revealed that letters written on the back of one's own head are consistently perceived from an embodied perspective, while the perspective on one's front is less consistent and often disembodied. We developed a cutaneous gap bisection task as a more discrete measure of the perspective on the body. In analogy to a visual pseudoneglect, we expected bisections to deviate toward the left ear when perceived from an embodied perspective. While this hypothesis was confirmed for gap bisections on the back, the results on the front suggest overall a disembodied perspective. Contrary to our expectation, this pattern was not predicted by the spontaneous perspective participants took in a graphesthesia task, indicating different cognitive mechanisms. We discuss these findings in the frame of the current literature on spatial attention and perspective taking. AbstractHumans perceive the world from an egocentric perspective, while being able to mentally take a third person's perspective. Graphesthesia tasks revealed that letters written on the back of one's own head are consistently perceived from an embodied perspective, while the perspective on one's front is less consistent and often disembodied. We developed a cutaneous gap bisection task as a more discrete measure of the perspective on the body. In analogy to a visual pseudoneglect, we expected bisections to deviate towards the left ear when perceived from an embodied perspective. While this hypothesis was confirmed for gap bisections on the back, the results on the front suggest overall a disembodied perspective.Contrary to our expectation, this pattern was not predicted by the spontaneous perspective participants took in a graphesthesia task, indicating different cognitive mechanisms. We discuss these findings in the frame of the current literature on spatial attention and perspective taking.

show abstract

Taking someone else’s spatial perspective: Natural stance or effortful decentring?

Cited by 34 publications

References 26 publications

Anchoring the Self to the Body in Bilateral Vestibular Failure

Anchoring the Self to the Body in Bilateral Vestibular Failure

Responding to sounds from unseen locations: crossmodal attentional orienting in response to sounds presented from the rear

Minding gaps on the skin: Opposite bisection biases on forehead and back of one’s head

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About