Lost in space: multisensory conflict yields adaptation in spatial representations across frames of reference Research Report First Online: 27 March 2017 Received: 15 May 2016 Accepted: 09 March 2017
Abstract According to embodied cognition, bodily interactions with our environment shape the perception and representation of our body and the surrounding space, that is, peripersonal space. To investigate the adaptive nature of these spatial representations, we introduced a multisensory conflict between vision and proprioception in an immersive virtual reality. During individual bimanual interaction trials, we gradually shifted the visual hand representation. As a result, participants unknowingly shifted their actual hands to compensate for the visual shift. We then measured the adaptation to the invoked multisensory conflict by means of a self-localization and an external localization task. While effects of the conflict were observed in both tasks, the effects systematically interacted with the type of localization task and the available visual information while performing the localization task (i.e., the visibility of the virtual hands). The results imply that the localization of one’s own hands is based on a multisensory integration process, which is modulated by the saliency of the currently most relevant sensory modality and the involved frame of reference. Moreover, the results suggest that our brain strives for consistency between its body and spatial estimates, thereby adapting multiple, related frames of reference, and the spatial estimates within, due to a sensory conflict in one of them.
Keywords Spatial perception Peripersonal space Multisensory integration Multisensory conflict Virtual reality Handling editor: Sergei Gepshtein (Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla); Reviewers: Joseph Snider (University of California San Diego), Loes van Dam (University of Essex).
References Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68(3):255–278
CrossRef Google Scholar Barsalou LW (2008) Grounded cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:617–645
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48
CrossRef Google Scholar Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands’feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391(6669):756
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Butz MV, Herbort O, Hoffmann J (2007) Exploiting redundancy for flexible behavior: unsupervised learning in a modular sensorimotor control architecture. Psychol Rev 114:1015–1046
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Butz MV, Kutter EF, Lorenz C (2014) Rubber hand illusion affects joint angle perception. PLoS ONE 9(3):e92854
CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral Google Scholar Canzoneri E, Ubaldi S, Rastelli V, Finisguerra A, Bassolino M, Serino A (2013) Tool-use reshapes the boundaries of body and peripersonal space representations. Exp Brain Res 228(1):25–42
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Coello Y, Bartolo A, Amiri B, Devanne H, Houdayer E, Derambure P (2008) Perceiving what is reachable depends on motor representations: evidence from a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. PLoS ONE 3(8):e2862
CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral Google Scholar Cohen YE, Andersen RA (2002) A common reference frame for movement plans in the posterior parietal cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci 3(7):553–562
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Ehrenfeld S, Butz MV (2013) The modular modality frame model: continuous body state estimation and plausibility-weighted information fusion. Biol Cybern 107(1):61–82
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Ehrenfeld S, Herbort O, Butz MV (2013) Modular neuron-based body estimation: maintaining consistency over different limbs, modalities, and frames of reference. Front Comput Neurosci 7 (Article UNSP 148)
Google Scholar Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415(6870):429–433
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Ernst MO, Bülthoff HH (2004) Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cogn Sci 8(4):162–169
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Farnè A, Làdavas E (2000) Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. NeuroReport 11(8):1645–1649
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Fogassi L, Gallese V, Fadiga L, Luppino G, Matelli M, Rizzolatti G (1996) Coding of peripersonal space in inferior premotor cortex (area f4). J Neurophysiol 76(1):141–157
PubMed Google Scholar Gamberini L, Seraglia B, Priftis K (2008) Processing of peripersonal and extrapersonal space using tools: evidence from visual line bisection in real and virtual environments. Neuropsychologia 46(5):1298–1304
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Gentilucci M, Jeannerod M, Tadary B, Decety J (1994) Dissociating visual and kinesthetic coordinates during pointing movements. Exp Brain Res 102(2):359–366
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Glenberg AM, Witt JK, Metcalfe J (2013) From the revolution to embodiment 25 years of cognitive psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci 8(5):573–585
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Guna J, Jakus G, Pogačnik M, Tomažič S, Sodnik J (2014) An analysis of the precision and reliability of the leap motion sensor and its suitability for static and dynamic tracking. Sensors 14(2):3702–3720
CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral Google Scholar Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6(2):65–70
Google Scholar Holmes NP, Spence C (2004) The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cogn Process 5(2):94–105
CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral Google Scholar Holmes NP, Spence C (2005) Visual bias of unseen hand position with a mirror: spatial and temporal factors. Exp Brain Res 166(3–4):489–497
CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral Google Scholar Holmes NP, Snijders HJ, Spence C (2006) Reaching with alien limbs: visual exposure to prosthetic hands in a mirror biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership. Percept Psychophys 68(4):685–701
CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral Google Scholar Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y (1996) Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport 7(14):2325–2330
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Jewell G, McCourt ME (2000) Pseudoneglect: a review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 38(1):93–110
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Kirsch W, Kunde W (2013) Visual near space is scaled to parameters of current action plans. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 39(5):1313–1325
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Kirsch W, Herbort O, Butz MV, Kunde W (2012) Influence of motor planning on distance perception within the peripersonal space. PLoS ONE 7(4):e34880
CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral Google Scholar Kuznetsova A, Bruun Brockhoff P, Haubo Bojesen Christensen R (2016) lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models.
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest , r package version 2.0-32
Lawrence MA (2015) ez: easy analysis and visualization of factorial experiments.
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ez , r package version 4.3
Linkenauger SA, Witt JK, Proffitt DR (2011) Taking a hands-on approach: apparent grasping ability scales the perception of object size. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37(5):1432–1441
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Linkenauger SA, Bülthoff HH, Mohler BJ (2015) Virtual arm’s reach influences perceived distances but only after experience reaching. Neuropsychologia 70:393–401
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Longo MR, Lourenco SF (2006) On the nature of near space: effects of tool use and the transition to far space. Neuropsychologia 44(6):977–981
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Longo MR, Lourenco SF (2007) Space perception and body morphology: extent of near space scales with arm length. Exp Brain Res 177(2):285–290
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Lourenco SF, Longo MR (2009) The plasticity of near space: evidence for contraction. Cognition 112(3):451–456
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Macaluso E, Maravita A (2010) The representation of space near the body through touch and vision. Neuropsychologia 48(3):782–795
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar McGuire LM, Sabes PN (2009) Sensory transformations and the use of multiple reference frames for reach planning. Nat Neurosci 12(8):1056–1061
CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral Google Scholar Mohler BJ, Bu¨lthoff HH, Thompson WB, Creem-Regehr SH (2008) A full-body avatar improves egocentric distance judgments in an immersive virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th symposium on applied perception in graphics and visualization, ACM
Google Scholar R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
https://www.R-project.org/
Regenbrecht H, Schubert T (2002) Real and illusory interactions enhance presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virt 11(4):425–434
CrossRef Google Scholar Rossetti Y, Desmurget M, Prablanc C (1995) Vectorial coding of movement: vision, proprioception, or both? J Neurophysiol 74(1):457–463
PubMed Google Scholar Schroeder PA, Lohmann J, Butz MV, Christian P (2016) Behavioral bias for food reflected in hand movements: a preliminary study with healthy subjects. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 19:120–126. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2015.0311
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H (2001) The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence 10(3):266–281
CrossRef Google Scholar Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28(9):1059–1074
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Simons DJ, Levin DT (1997) Change blindness. Trends Cogn Sci 1(7):261–267
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar Wood G, Willmes K, Nuerk HC, Fischer MH (2008) On the cognitive link between space and number: a meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychol Sci Q 50(4):489–525
Google Scholar © Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Authors and Affiliations 1. Cognitive Modeling Department of Computer Science, University of Tübingen Tübingen Germany