Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 166, Issue 3–4, pp 498–508 | Cite as

Effect of posture change on tactile perception: impaired direction discrimination performance with interleaved fingers

Research Article

Abstract

We report a series of experiments in which participants had to judge the direction in which a pair of vibrotactile stimuli presented to two adjacent digits of either the same or different hands were stimulated (left-to-right or vice versa in experiments 1 and 2; near-to-far or vice versa in experiment 3, at stimulus onset asynchronies varying between 100 and 600 ms). When the participant’s hands were placed side-by-side (anatomical posture), with their fingers either pointing away from them or else pointing toward the midline, directional discrimination performance was generally accurate. By contrast, when the fingers of the two hands were interleaved in either of these postures, performance deteriorated significantly for certain specific combinations of digits, with a more pronounced impairment seen when the fingers pointed away from the participant than when they pointed toward the midline. This decline in tactile direction discrimination performance in the interleaved fingers posture appears to reflect a failure to represent the position of tactile stimuli correctly when the fingers of the two hands are interleaved.

Keywords

Tactile perception Postural effects Multisensory integration Proprioception 

References

  1. Adam JJ, Hommel B, Umiltà C (2003) Preparing for perception and action (I): the role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cognit Psychol 46:302–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aglioti S, Smania N, Peru A (1999) Frames of reference for mapping tactile stimuli in brain-damaged patients. J Cogn Neurosci 11:67–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnett CT (1904) Studies in influence of abnormal position on motor impulse. Psychol Rev 11:370–394Google Scholar
  4. Colby CL (1998) Action-oriented spatial reference frames in cortex. Neuron 20:15–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Coslett HB (1998) Evidence for a disturbance of the body schema in neglect. Brain Cogn 37:527–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Coslett HB, Lie E (2004) Bare hands and attention: evidence for a tactile representation of the human body. Neuropsychologia 42:1865–1876CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Craig JC (2003) The effect of hand position and pattern motion on temporal order judgments. Percept Psychophys 65:779–788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Driver J, Spence C (1998) Crossmodal links in spatial attention. Philos Trans R Soc Sect B 353:1319–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elithorn A, Piercy MF, Crosskey MA (1953) Tactile localization. Q J Exp Psychol 5:171–182Google Scholar
  10. Gardner EP, Sklar BF (1994) Discrimination of the direction of motion on the human hand: a psychophysical study of stimulation parameters. J Neurophysiol 71:2414–2429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Henri V (1898) Über die Raumwahrnehmung des Tastsinnes: Ein Beitrag zur experimentellen Psychologie [On the spatial perception of the tactile sense: a contribution to experimental psychology]. Reuther and Reichard, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Iwamura Y, Tanaka M, Hikosaka O (1980) Overlapping representation of fingers in area 2 of the somatosensory cortex in conscious monkeys. Brain Res 197:516–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson CV, Zangwill OL (1952) Experimental finger dyspraxia. Q J Exp Psychol 4:1–10Google Scholar
  14. Kim DH, Cruse H (2001) Two kinds of body representation are used to control hand movements following tactile stimulation. Exp Brain Res 139:76–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirman JH (1974) Tactile apparent movement: the effects of interstimulus onset interval and stimulus duration. Percept Psychophys 15:1–6Google Scholar
  16. Kitazawa S (2002) Where conscious sensation takes place. Conscious Cogn 11:475–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein E, Schilder P (1929) The Japanese illusion and the postural model of the body. J Nerv Ment Dis 70:241–263Google Scholar
  18. Matsumoto E, Misaki M, Miyauchi S (2002) Neural mechanisms of spatial stimulus-response compatibility: the effect of crossed-hand position. Exp Brain Res 158:9–17Google Scholar
  19. Penfield W, Rasmussen T (1950) The cerebral cortex of man. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Röder B, Rösler F, Spence C (2004) Early vision impairs tactile perception in the blind. Curr Biol 14:121–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Schweizer R, Maier M, Braun C, Birbaumer N (2000) Distribution of mislocalizations of tactile stimuli on the fingers of the human hand. Somatosens Mot Res 17:309–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sherrick CE (1968a) Bilateral apparent haptic movement. Percept Psychophys 4:159–160Google Scholar
  23. Sherrick CE (1968b) Studies of apparent tactual movement. In: Kenshalo DR (ed) The skin senses. Thomas, Springfield, Ill., pp 331–344Google Scholar
  24. Shore DI, Spry E, Spence C (2002) Confusing the mind by crossing the hands. Cogn Brain Res 14:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Riper C (1935) An experimental study of the Japanese illusion. Am J Psychol 47:252–263Google Scholar
  26. Yamamoto S, Kitazawa S (2001) Reversal of subjective temporal order due to arm crossing. Nat Neurosci 4:759–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive Sciences and EducationUniversity of TrentoRoveretoItaly

Personalised recommendations