Psychological Research

, Volume 80, Issue 4, pp 677–684 | Cite as

Exogenous and endogenous shifts of attention in perihand space

  • Nathalie Le BigotEmail author
  • Marc Grosjean
Original Article


While some studies have found that attentional orienting is altered in perihand space, most have not. One reason for such discrepancies may be related to the types of cues (uninformative and informative) that have been used, as they are known to induce different types of shifts of attention (exogenous and endogenous, respectively). To systematically address this question, two experiments were performed in which an uninformative peripheral cue (Experiment 1) or an informative central cue (Experiment 2) preceded a peripheral target with a short (100–150 ms) stimulus-onset asynchrony. Participants performed the task with their left hand, right hand, both hands, or no hands near the display. Cueing effects were obtained in both experiments, but they were only modulated by hand position in Experiment 1, with larger effects observed in the right- and both-hand conditions. These findings suggest that exogenous attention shifts are affected by hand proximity, while endogenous shifts are not.


Hand Position Invalid Trial Attentional Orienting Visual Discrimination Task Exogenous Attention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Grant Ja 747/5-1). We would like to thank Robert Proctor and Peter Wühr for helpful comments, Richard Smolka for technical assistance, and Rozeta Georgieva and Marina Meinert for running the participants.


  1. Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035–1047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bridgeman, B., & Tseng, P. (2011). Embodied cognition and the perception-action link. Physics of Life Reviews, 8, 73–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockmole, J. R., Davoli, C. C., Abrams, R. A., & Witt, J. K. (2013). The world within reach: effects of hand posture and tool use on visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, L. E., Doole, R., & Malfait, N. (2011). The role of motor learning in spatial adaptation near a tool. PLoS ONE, 6(12), e28999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028999.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chica, A. B., Bartolomeo, P., & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Two cognitive and neural systems for endogeneous and exogeneous spatial attention. Behavioural Brain Research, 237, 107–123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chica, A. B., Martín-Arévalo, E., Botta, F., & Lupiáñez, J. (2014). The spatial orienting paradigm: how to design and interpret spatial attention experiments. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 40, 35–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chica, A. B., Sanabria, D., Lupiáñez, J., & Spence, C. (2007). Comparing intramodal and crossmodal cuing in the endogenous orienting of spatial attention. Experimental Brain Research, 179, 353–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: a simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.Google Scholar
  9. Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Montana, J., Gaverick, S., & Abrams, R. A. (2010). When meaning matters, look but don’t touch: the effects of posture on reading. Memory & Cognition, 38(5), 555–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Derrington, A. M., & Lennie, P. (1984). Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivities of neurones in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the macaque. Journal of Physiology, 357, 219–240.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Dufour, A., & Touzalin, P. (2008). Improved visual sensitivity in the perihand space. Experimental Brain Research, 190, 91–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Geffen, G., Bradshaw, J. L., & Wallace, G. (1971). Interhemispheric effects on reaction time to verbal and nonverbal visual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 415–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodhew, S. C., Gozli, D. G., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2013). Reduced temporal fusion in near-hand space. Psychological Science,. doi: 10.1177/0956797612463402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gozli, D. G., Ardron, J., & Pratt, J. (2014). Reduced visual feature binding in the near-hand space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1308–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gozli, D. G., West, G. L., & Pratt, J. (2012). Hand position alters vision by biasing processing through different visual pathways. Cognition, 124, 244–250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein, R. M. (2009). On the control of attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 240–252.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Bigot, N., & Grosjean, M. (2012). Effects of handedness on visual sensitivity in perihand space. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043150.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Livingstone, M., & Hubel, D. (1988). Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception. Science, 240(4853), 740–749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Llyod, D. M., Azanon, E., & Poliakoff, E. (2010). Right hand presence modulates shifts of exogenous visuospatial attention in near perihand space. Brain and Cognition, 73, 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McAuliffe, J., Johnson, M. J., Weaver, B., Deller-Quinn, M., & Hansen, S. (2013). Body position differentially influences responses to exogenous and endogenous cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1342–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merigan, W. H., & Maunsell, J. H. R. (1993). How parallel are the primate visual pathway? Annual Review of Neuroscience, 16, 369–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Moscovitch, M., & Catlin, J. (1970). Interhemispheric transmission of information: measurement in normal man. Psychonomic Science, 18, 211–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburg inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Reed, C. L., Betz, R., Garza, J. P., & Roberts, R. J. J. (2010). Grab it! Biased attention in functional hand and tool space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(1), 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas, E. T. (2013). Grasp posture modulates attentional prioritization of space near the hands. Frontiers in Psychology,. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00312.Google Scholar
  30. Tseng, P., & Bridgeman, B. (2011). Improved change detection with nearby hands. Experimental Brain Research, 209, 257–269.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Tseng, P., Bridgeman, B., & Juan, C. (2012). Take the matter into your own hands: a brief review of the effect of nearby-hands on visual processing. Vision Research, 72, 74–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Tseng, P., Yu, J., Tzeng, O. J. L., Hung, D. L., & Juan, C. (2014). Hand proximity facilitates spatial discrimination of auditory tones. Frontiers in Psychology,. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00527.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Vatterott, D. B., & Vecera, S. P. (2013). Prolonged disengagement from distractors near the hands. Frontiers in Psychology,. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00533.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lab-STICC, University of Western Brittany and CNRSPlouzanéFrance
  2. 2.Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human FactorsDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations