Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 204, Issue 3, pp 419–430 | Cite as

Influence of the body on crossmodal interference effects between tactile and two-dimensional visual stimuli

  • Yuka Igarashi
  • Norimichi Kitagawa
  • Shigeru Ichihara
Research Article


We investigated how tactile discrimination performance was interfered with by irrelevant two-dimensional visual stimuli using the crossmodal interference task. Participants made speeded discrimination responses to the location of vibrotactile targets presented to either tip or base of their forefinger, while trying to ignore simultaneously presented visual distractors presented to either side of the central fixation on a front display. The array of visual distractors was presented at four different angles, and the participants rested their stimulated hand on a desk in either a forward-pointing or inward-pointing posture. Although there was apparently no specific spatial relationship between the tactile and two-dimensional visual stimuli arrays and the spatial response requirement was controlled, visuotactile interference effects occurred between them. Moreover, we found that the spatial relationships between the arrays depended on the potential range of movement and the current posture of the vibrotactile-stimulated hand and possibly the stored orientation of our hand representation, even without any explicit cue referring to hands. Our results suggest that the visuotactile spatial interactions involve multiple mechanisms regarding our bodily perception and our internal body representation.


Visuotactile interactions Crossmodal interference effects Proprioception Hand Body representation 



We thank Prof Charles Spence and Yota Kimura for their helpful comments regarding this study. Y.I. was supported by a JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists. Part of this study was conducted while Y.I. was visiting NTT Communication Science Laboratories. S.I. was supported by Grants in Aid for Scientific Research, Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan (No. 18530564).


  1. Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (2003) Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:1499–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austen EL, Soto-Faraco S, Enns JT, Kingstone A (2004) Mislocalizations of touch to a fake hand. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:170–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. di Pellegrino G, Làdavas E, Farnè A (1997) Seeing where your hands are. Nature 388:730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE (2004) That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305:875–877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Farnè A, Pavani F, Meneghello F, Làdavas E (2000) Left tactile extinction following visual stimulation of a rubber hand. Brain 123:2350–2360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Galfano G, Pavani F (2005) Long-lasting capture of tactile attention by body shadows. Exp Brain Res 166:518–527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallace A, Soto-Faraco S, Dalton P, Kreukniet B, Spence C (2008) Response requirements modulate tactile spatial congruency effects. Exp Brain Res 191:171–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Graziano MSA, Gross CG, Taylor CSR, Moore T (2004) A system of multimodal areas in the primate brain. In: Spence C, Driver J (eds) Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 51–67Google Scholar
  11. Haggard P, Wolpert D (2005) Disorder of body schema. In: Freund HJ, Jeannerod M, Hallet M, Leiguarda R (eds) Higher-order motor disorders. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 261–272Google Scholar
  12. Holmes NP, Spence C (2006) Beyond the body schema: visual, prosthetic, and technological contributions to bodily perception and awareness. In: Knoblich G, Thornton IM, Grosjean M, Shiffrar M (eds) Human body perception from the inside out. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–64Google Scholar
  13. Igarashi Y, Kitagawa N, Ichihara S (2004) Vision of a pictorial hand modulates visual-tactile interactions. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:182–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Igarashi Y, Kitagawa N, Spence C, Ichihara S (2007) Assessing the influence of schematic drawings of body parts on tactile discrimination performance using the crossmodal congruency task. Acta Psychol 124:190–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Igarashi Y, Kimura Y, Spence C, Ichihara S (2008) The selective effect of the image of a hand on visuotactile interactions as assessed by performance on the crossmodal congruency task. Exp Brain Res 184:31–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ladavas E, Farnè A (2004) Neuropsychological evidence for multimodal representations of space near specific body parts. In: Spence C, Driver J (eds) Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 69–98Google Scholar
  17. Lippa Y, Adam JJ (2001) An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: the end-state comfort hypothesis. Percept Psychophys 63:156–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Maravita A, Iriki A (2004) Tools for the body (schema). Trends Cogn Sci 8:79–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maravita A, Spence C, Sergent C, Driver J (2002) Seeing your own touched hands in a mirror modulates cross-modal interactions. Psychol Sci 13:350–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Maravita A, Spence C, Driver J (2003) Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Curr Biol 13:R531–R539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Parsons LM (1987) Imagined spatial transformations of one’s hands and feet. Cogn Psychol 19:178–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Parsons LM (1994) Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:709–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Parsons LM (2001) Integrating cognitive psychology, neurology and neuroimaging. Acta Psychol 107:155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parsons LM, Fox PT, Downs JH, Glass T, Hirsch TB, Martin CC, Jerabek PA, Lancaster JL (1995) Use of implicit motor imagery for visual shape discrimination as revealed by PET. Nature 375:54–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavani F, Castiello U (2004) Binding personal and extrapersonal space through body shadows. Nat Neurosci 7:13–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pavani F, Galfano G (2007) Self-attributed body-shadows modulate tactile attention. Cognition 104:73–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pavani F, Spence C, Driver J (2000) Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychol Sci 11:353–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pelli DG (1997) The video toolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10:437–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwoebel J, Friedman R, Duda N, Coslett HB (2001) Pain and the body schema: evidence for peripheral effects on mental representations of movement. Brain 124:2098–2104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sekiyama K (1982) Kinesthetic aspects of mental representations in the identification of left and right hands. Percept Psychophys 32:89–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sekiyama K (1983) Mental and physical movements of hands: kinesthetic information preserved in representational systems. Jpn Psychol Res 25:95–102Google Scholar
  33. Shore DI, Barnes ME, Spence C (2006) Temporal aspects of the visuotactile congruency effect. Neurosci Lett 392:96–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Soto-Faraco S, Ronald A, Spence C (2004) Tactile selective attention and body posture: assessing the multisensory contribution of vision and proprioception. Percept Psychophys 66:1077–1094PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Spence C, Kingstone A, Shore DI, Gazzaniga MS (2001) Representation of visuotactile space in the split-brain. Psychol Sci 12:90–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Spence C, Pavani F, Driver J (2004a) Spatial constraints on visual-tactile crossmodal distractor congruency effects. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:148–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Spence C, Pavani F, Maravita A, Holmes N (2004b) Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuotactile peripersonal space in humans: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. J Physiol Paris 98:171–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Spence C, Pavani F, Maravita A, Holmes NP (2008) Multi-sensory interactions. In: Lin MC, Otaduy MA (eds) Haptic rendering: foundations, algorithms, and applications. AK Peters, Wellesley, pp 21–52Google Scholar
  39. Tomasino B, Rumiati RI, Umilta CA (2003) Selective deficit of motor imagery as tapped by a left-right decision of visually presented hands. Brain Cogn 53:376–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuka Igarashi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Norimichi Kitagawa
    • 3
  • Shigeru Ichihara
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Human ScienceKanagawa UniversityYokohamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyTokyo Metropolitan UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.NTT Communication Science LaboratoriesNTT CorporationKanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations