Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 472–487 | Cite as

The Leuven Perceptual Organization Screening Test (L-POST), an online test to assess mid-level visual perception

  • Katrien Torfs
  • Kathleen Vancleef
  • Christophe Lafosse
  • Johan Wagemans
  • Lee de-Wit
Article

Abstract

Neuropsychological diagnostic tests of visual perception mostly assess high-level processes like object recognition. Object recognition, however, relies on distinct mid-level processes of perceptual organization that are only implicitly tested in classical tests. The Leuven Perceptual Organization Screening Test (L-POST) fills a gap with respect to clinically oriented tests of mid-level visual function. In 15 online subtests, a range of mid-level processes are covered, such as figure–ground segmentation, local and global processing, and shape perception. We also test the sensitivity to a wide variety of perceptual grouping cues, like common fate, collinearity, proximity, and closure. To reduce cognitive load, a matching-to-sample task is used for all subtests. Our online test can be administered in 20–45 min and is freely available at www.gestaltrevision.be/tests. The online implementation enables us to offer a separate interface for researchers and clinicians to have immediate access to the raw and summary results for each patient and to keep a record of their patient’s entire data. Also, each patient’s results can be flexibly compared with a range of age-matched norm samples. In conclusion, the L-POST is a valuable screening test for perceptual organization. The test allows clinicians to screen for deficits in visual perception and enables researchers to get a broader overview of mid-level visual processes that are preserved or disrupted in a given patient.

Keywords

Perceptual organization Screening test Neuropsychology Brain damage Mid-level vision Shape perception 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the neuropsychologists and the patients from Revarte Rehabilitation Hospital (Edegem) for their kind cooperation and feedback in the development of this test. We would also like to thank Niko Troje, Naoki Kogo, Maarten Demeyer, and three master students, Tim Stekelinck, Sofie Vanthienen, and Ellen Olbrechts, for assistance with the construction of some of the subtest stimuli, Rudy Dekeerschieter for the technical implementation of the L-POST, and Elia Acke and Glyn Humphreys for their help in testing the two case studies reported here. This work was supported by a Methusalem Grant (Meth/08/02) awarded to Johan Wagemans from the Flemish Government. Lee de-Wit was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Research Foundation–Flanders (FWO). Katrien Torfs and Kathleen Vancleef contributed equally to this work.

References

  1. Bach, M. (1996). The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optometry & Vision Science, 73(1), 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach, M. (2007). The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefe’s archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 245(7), 965–971. doi: 10.1007/s00417-006-0474-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, G. V., Cabe, P. A., & Thornton, C. L. (1968). Visual functioning and embedded figures test performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26(1), 40. doi: 10.2466/pms.1968.26.1.40 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, J. (1966). Effect of orientation and of shape similarity on perceptual grouping. Perception & Psychophysics, 1(5), 300–302. doi: 10.3758/BF03207395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bender, L. (1938). A visual motor gestalt test and its clinical use. The American Orthopsychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  6. Binetti, G., Cappa, S. F., Magni, E., Padovani, A., Bianchetti, A., & Trabucchi, M. (1998). Visual and spatial perception in the early phase of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 12(1), 29–33. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.12.1.29 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blake, R., & Shiffrar, M. (2007). Perception of human motion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 47–73. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190152 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braet, W., & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). A selective effect of parietal damage on letter identification in mixed case words. Neuropsychologia, 45(10), 2226–2233. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.02.016 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Britten, K. H., Shadlen, M. N., Newsome, W. T., & Movshon, J. A. (1993). Responses of neurons in macaque MT to stochastic motion signals. Visual Neuroscience, 10(06), 1157–1169. doi: 10.1017/S0952523800010269 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claessens, P. M. E., & Wagemans, J. (2005). Perceptual grouping in Gabor lattices: proximity and alignment. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(8), 1446–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Claessens, P. M. E., & Wagemans, J. (2008). A Bayesian framework for cue integration in multistable grouping: Proximity, collinearity, and orientation priors in zigzag lattices. Journal of Vision, 8(7), 1–23. Retrieved from http://journalofvision.org/8/7/33/ PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colarusso, R. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2012). Motor-free Visual Perception Test (MVPT-3) 3rd Edition, (update), 1–4.Google Scholar
  13. Coslett, H. B., & Saffran, E. (1991). Simultanagnosia. To see but not two see. Brain, 114, 1523–1545. doi: 10.1093/brain/114.4.1523 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e57410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057410 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dakin, S. C., & Frith, U. (2005). Vagaries of visual perception in autism. Neuron, 48(3), 497–507. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.018 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Della Salla, S., Laiacona, M., Trivelli, C., & Spinnler, H. (1995). Poppelreuter-Ghent’s overlapping figures test: Its sensitivity to age, and its clinical use. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 10(6), 511–534. doi: 10.1016/0887-6177(94)00049-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Demeyer, M., & Machilsen, B. (2012). The construction of perceptual grouping displays using GERT. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 439–446. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0167-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Demeyere, N., Lestou, V., & Humphreys, G. W. (2010). Neuropsychological evidence for a dissociation in counting and subitizing. Neurocase, 16(3), 219–237. doi: 10.1080/13554790903405719 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Driver, J., & Mattingley, J. B. (1998). Parietal neglect and visual awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 1(1), 17–22. doi: 10.1038/217 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Efron, R. (1969). What is perception? Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 4, 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Field, D. J., Hayes, A., & Hess, R. F. (1993). Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local “association field”. Vision Research, 33(2), 173–193. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(93)90156-Q PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedrich, F. J., Egly, R., Rafal, R. D., & Beck, D. (1998). Spatial attention deficits in humans: A comparison of superior parietal and temporal-parietal junction lesions. Neuropsychology, 12(2), 193–207. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.12.2.193 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the enigma. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Goodale, M. A., Milner, A. D., Jakobson, L. S., & Carey, D. P. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349(6305), 154–156. doi: 10.1038/349154a0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2000). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. The American psychologist, 59(2), 93–104. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grossman, E., Donnelly, M., Price, R., Pickens, D., Morgan, V., Neighbor, G., & Blake, R. (2000). Brain Areas Involved in Perception of Biological Motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(5), 711–720. doi: 10.1162/089892900562417 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hooper, H. E. (1983). Hooper Visual Organization Test (VOT). Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  28. Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2001). Knowing what you need but not what you want: Affordances and action-defined templates in neglect. Behavioural Neurology, 13(1–2), 75–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14(2), 201–211. doi: 10.3758/BF03212378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Julesz, B. (1981). Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interactions. Nature, 290(5802), 91–97. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7207603 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W., & Volkmann, J. (1949). The discrimination of visual number. The American Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 498. doi: 10.2307/1418556 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koffka, K. (1922). Perception: An introduction to the Gestalt-Theorie. Psychological Bulletin, 19(10), 531–585. doi: 10.1037/h0072422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koiava, N., Ong, Y.-H., Brown, M. M., Acheson, J., Plant, G. T., & Leff, A. P. (2012). A “web app” for diagnosing hemianopia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 83(12), 1222–1224. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302270 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Report of Board of Scientific Affairs’ Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet. The American psychologist, 59(2), 105–117. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.105 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kubovy, M., Holcombe, A. O., & Wagemans, J. (1998). On the Lawfulness of Grouping by Proximity. Cognitive Psychology, 35(1), 71–98. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1997.0673 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kubovy, M., & Van den Berg, M. (2008). The whole is equal to the sum of its parts: A probabilistic model of grouping by proximity and similarity in regular patterns. Psychological Review, 115(1), 131–154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kubovy, M., & Wagemans, J. (1995). Grouping by proximity and multistability in dot lattices: A quantitiative Gestalt theory. Psychological Science, 6(4), 225–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00597.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lamme, V. A. F., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, V., & Spekreijse, H. (1999). Separate Processing Dynamics for Texture Elements, Boundaries and Surfaces in Primary Visual Cortex of the Macaque Monkey. Cerebral Cortex, 9(4), 406–413. doi: 10.1093/cercor/9.4.406 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lamme, V. A. F., Van Dijk, B. W., & Spekreijse, H. (1992). Texture segregation is processed by primary visual cortex in man and monkey. Evidence from VEP experiments. Vision Research, 32(5), 797–807. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(92)90022-B PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawrence, A. D., Watkins, L. H. A., Sahakian, B. J., Hodges, J. R., & Robbins, T. W. (2000). Visual object and visuospatial cognition in Huntington’s disease: Implications for information processing in corticostriatal circuits. Brain, 123(7), 1349–1364. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.7.1349 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Machilsen, B., Novitskiy, N., Vancleef, K., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Context modulates the ERP signature of contour integration. PloS ONE, 6(9), e25151. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025151 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Machilsen, B., Pauwels, M., & Wagemans, J. (2009). The role of vertical mirror symmetry in visual shape detection. Journal of Vision, 9(12), 11.1–11.11. doi: 10.1167/9.12.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Machilsen, B., & Wagemans, J. (2011). Integration of contour and surface information in shape detection. Vision Research, 51(1), 179–186. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.11.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meyers, J. E., & Meyers, K. R. (1996). Rey complex figure test and recognition trial. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assesment Resources.Google Scholar
  45. Michotte, A., Thinès, G., & Crabbe, G. (1964). Amodal completion of perceptual structures. In G. Thines, A. Costall, & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception (pp. 140–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Milne, E., & Szczerbinski, M. (2009). Global and local perceptual style, field-independence, and central coherence: An attempt at concept validation. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 5, 1–26. doi: 10.2478/v10053-008-0062-8 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Milner, A. D., Perrett, D. I., Johnston, R. S., Benson, P. J., Jordan, T. R., Heeley, D. W., … Terazzi, E. (1991). Perception and action in “visual form agnosia”. Brain, 114(1), 405–428. doi: 10.1093/brain/114.1.405 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mooney, C. M., & Ferguson, G. A. (1951). A new closure test. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 5(3), 129–133. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14870072 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nakayama, K., Shimojo, S., & Silverman, G. H. (1989). Stereoscopic depth: Its relation to image segmentation, grouping, and the recognition of occluded objects. Perception, 18(1), 55–68. doi: 10.1068/p180055 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nygård, G. E., Van Looy, T., & Wagemans, J. (2009). The influence of orientation jitter and motion on contour saliency and object identification. Vision Research, 49(20), 2475–2484. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nygård, G. E., Sassi, M., & Wagemans, J. (2011). The influence of orientation and contrast flicker on contour saliency of outlines of everyday objects. Vision Research, 51(1), 65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.09.032 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Op de Beeck, H. P., Baker, C. I., DiCarlo, J. J., & Kanwisher, N. G. (2006). Discrimination training alters object representations in human extrastriate cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(50), 13025–13036. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2481-06.2006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Op de Beeck, H. P., Torfs, K., & Wagemans, J. (2008). Perceived shape similarity among unfamiliar objects and the organization of the human object vision pathway. The Journal of Neuroscience : the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 28(40), 10111–10123. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2511-08.2008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Orban, G. A., Dupont, P., De Bruyn, B., Vogels, R., Vandenberghe, R., & Mortelmans, L. (1995). A motion area in human visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 92(4), 993–997. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC42623/ PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ortega, A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Lee, M. D., Markowitsch, H. J., & Piefke, M. (2012). A Bayesian latent group analysis for detecting poor effort in the assessment of malingering. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: the Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 27(4), 453–465. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acs038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reips, U.-D. (2000). The web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological Experiments on the Internet (pp. 89–117). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1987). A case of integrative visual agnosia. Brain, 110(6), 1431–1462. doi: 10.1093/brain/110.6.1431 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1993). Birmingham object recognition battery. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  59. Robertson, L., Treisman, A., Friedman-Hill, S., & Grabowecky, M. (1997). The interaction of spatial and object pathways: evidence from Balint’s syndrome. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(3), 295–317. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1997.9.3.295 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sassi, M., Machilsen, B., & Wagemans, J. (2012). Shape detection of Gaborized outline versions of everyday objects. i-Perception, 3(10), 745–764. doi: 10.1068/i0499 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sassi, M., Vancleef, K., Machilsen, B., Panis, S., & Wagemans, J. (2010). Identification of everyday objects on the basis of Gaborized outline versions. i-Perception, 1(3), 121–142. doi: 10.1068/i0384 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Saygin, A. P. (2007). Superior temporal and premotor brain areas necessary for biological motion perception. Brain, 130(9), 2452–2461. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm162 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Segaert, K., Nygård, G. E., & Wagemans, J. (2009). Identification of everyday objects on the basis of kinetic contours. Vision Research, 49(4), 417–428. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2008.11.012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sergent, J., & Signoret, J.-L. (1992). Varieties of functional deficits in Prosopagnosia. Cerebral Cortex, 2(5), 375–388. doi: 10.1093/cercor/2.5.375 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Silverstein, S. M. (2008). Measuring specific, rather than generalized, cognitive deficits and maximizing between-group effect size in studies of cognition and cognitive change. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 34(4), 645–655.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Silverstein, S. M., Berten, S., Olson, P., Paul, R., Willams, L. M., Cooper, N., & Gordon, E. (2007). Development and validation of a World-Wide-Web-based neurocognitive assessment battery: WebNeuro. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 940–9. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18183911 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Silverstein, S. M., & Keane, B. P. (2011). Perceptual organization impairment in schizophrenia and associated brain mechanisms: review of research from 2005 to 2010. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37(4), 690–699. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbr052 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(4), 644–649. doi: 10.3758/BF03208840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tatemichi, T. K., Desmond, D. W., Stern, Y., Paik, M., Sano, M., & Bagiella, E. (1994). Cognitive impairment after stroke: Frequency, patterns, and relationship to functional abilities. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 57(2), 202–207. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.57.2.202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Troje, N. F. (2002). Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. Journal of Vision, 2(5), 371–387. doi:http://www.journalofvision.org/content/2/5/2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vancleef, K., Putzeys, T., Gheorghiu, E., Sassi, M., Machilsen, B., & Wagemans, J. (2013). Spatial arrangement in texture discrimination and texture segregation. i-Perception, 4(1), 36–52. doi: 10.1068/i0515 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Oostende, S., Sunaert, S., Hecke, P. V., Marchal, G., & Orban, G. A. (1997). The kinetic occipital (KO) region in man: an fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 7(7), 690–701. doi: 10.1093/cercor/7.7.690 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & Von der Heydt, R. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1172–1217. doi: 10.1037/a0029333 Google Scholar
  74. Wagemans, J., Feldman, J., Gepshtein, S., Kimchi, R., Pomerantz, J. R., Van der Helm, P. A., & Van Leeuwen, C. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: II.Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1218–1252. doi: 10.1037/a0029334 Google Scholar
  75. Wagemans, J., Wichmann, F. A., & Op de Beeck, H. (2005). Visual perception I: Basic principles. In K. Lamberts & R. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 3–47). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Warrington, E. K. (1985). Agnosia: The impairment of object recognition. In J. A. M. Frederiks (Ed.), Handbook of clinical neurology: Clinical neuropsychology (pp. 333–349). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  77. Warrington, E. K., & James, M. (1991). The visual object and space perception battery. Bury St. Edmunds, UK: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
  78. Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A sourcebook of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71–88). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. White, S. J., & Saldaña, D. (2011). Performance of children with autism on the Embedded Figures Test: A closer look at a popular task. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(11), 1565–1572. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1182-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wichmann, F. A., Drewes, J., Rosas, P., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2010). Animal detection in natural scenes: Critical features revisited. Journal of Vision, 10(4). doi: 10.1167/10.4.6
  81. Wilkinson, F., Wilson, H. R., & Habak, C. (1998). Detection and recognition of radial frequency patterns. Vision Research, 38(22), 3555–3568. doi: 10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00039-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Williams, D. W., & Sekuler, R. (1984). Coherent global motion percepts from stochastic local motions. Vision Research, 24(1), 55–62. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(84)90144-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Witkin, H. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrien Torfs
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kathleen Vancleef
    • 1
  • Christophe Lafosse
    • 1
    • 3
  • Johan Wagemans
    • 1
  • Lee de-Wit
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Psychological Sciences Research Institute and Institute of NeuroscienceUniversity of LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  3. 3.Rehabilitation Hospital RevArteEdegemBelgium

Personalised recommendations