Action Spaces Representation in Social Contexts

Yann, C.

doi:10.1002/9781119362081.ch12

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 126 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, those observations contribute to the literature indicating that affiliative contexts modulate multisensory integration near the body [26–28]. It is also in coherence with the larger literature indicating that social factors modulate the way we apprehend the space around us [39], be it the perception of reachable space [23], affordances [40], interpersonal distances [41,42] or defensive responses to threat in space [43]. In contrast, the situation of audience characterized here by the presence of an inactive individual with whom no relationship was declared, did not introduce any behavioural changes, as already reported for reaching actions [37].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Social coding of the multisensory space around us

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisensory integration of stimuli occurring in the area surrounding our bodies gives rise to the functional representation of peripersonal space (PPS). PPS extent is flexible according to the affective context and the target of an action, but little is known about how social context modulates it. We used an audiotactile interaction task to investigate PPS of individuals during social interaction. Participants had to detect as fast as possible a tactile stimulus while task-irrelevant looming sounds were presented, while they were paired as collaborative dyads and as competitive dyads. We also measured PPS in participants seated near an inactive individual. PPS boundaries were modulated only when participants collaborated with a partner, in the form of an extension on the right hemispace and independently of the location of the partner. This suggests that space processing is modified during collaborative tasks. During collective actions, a supra-individual representation of the space of action could be at stake in order to adapt our individual motor control to an interaction as a group with the external world. Reassessing multisensory integration in the light of its potential social sensitivity might reveal that low-level mechanisms are modified by the need to interact with others.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Social coding of the multisensory space around us

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As for the latter, in proxemics it is known that repeated encounters with the same person can cause a reduction in comfort distance due to an increase in the sense of familiarity [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. As for the cooperative context, participants might have taken into account the portion of space of the other, trying not to invade it (e.g., [ 52 , 53 ]). This would be also in line with previous observations in which people tend to assign specific regions of the workspace to one another in cooperative motor tasks by adapting their behaviour to fit the social context [ 54 , 55 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Context and Tool Use Can Modulate Interpersonal Comfort Space

Ferrara

Rapuano

Ruggiero

2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has investigated whether the representation of space around the body, in terms of reach–action (imagining of reaching another person) and comfort–social (tolerance of the other’s proximity) spaces, may reflect a shared sensorimotor basis. Some studies exploiting motor plasticity induced by tool use have not observed sensorimotor identity (i.e., the same mechanisms that underlie, based on sensory information, the representation of proximal space in terms of action possibilities, goal-directed motor actions, and anticipation of the sensorimotor consequences), whereas evidence to the contrary has also emerged. Since the data are not fully convergent, here we wondered whether or not the combination of motor plasticity induced by tool use and the processing of the role of social context might reflect a similar modulation in both spaces. To this end, we conducted a randomized control trial with three groups of participants (N = 62) in which reaching and comfort distances were measured in Pre- and Post-tool-use sessions. The tool-use sessions were conducted under different conditions: (i) in the presence of a social stimulus (determining the social context) (Tool plus Mannequin group); (ii) without any stimulus (Only Tool group); (iii) in the presence of a box (Tool plus Object group) as a control condition. Results showed an extension of comfort distance in the Post-tool session of the Tool plus Mannequin group compared with the other conditions. Conversely, the reaching distance was larger after tool use than at the Pre-tool-use session, independently of the experimental conditions. Our findings suggest that motor plasticity impacts reaching and comfort spaces to different degrees; while reaching space is markedly sensitive to motor plasticity, comfort space needs qualification of social context information.

show abstract

“…Accordingly, a too large IPD would not be appropriate for efficient social interactions, and a too short IPD would trigger discomfort and defensive neurophysiological responses (Cartaud, Ott, Iachini, Honoré, & Coello, 2020;Cartaud, Ruggiero, Ott, Iachini, & Coello, 2018;Kennedy, Gläscher, Tyszka, & Adolphs, 2009;Vieira, Pierzchajlo, & Mitchell, 2020). Furthermore, egocentric representation of near-body action space (Coello, 2018;Quesque et al, 2017), or others' attributes such as age (Iachini et al, 2016), gender and emotional facial expression (FE) can alter IPD regulation , highlighting the sensitivity of social spatial regulation to contextual information. As such, emotional FE are crucial cues in social interactions and thus in the regulation of IPD, mainly because they represent a valuable source of information with respect to the emotional state of others (Schrammel, Pannasch, Graupner, Mojzisch, & Velichkovsky, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast effect of emotional context on interpersonal distance with neutral social stimuli

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In social interactions, valence-based judgements are an important component of interpersonal distances regulation. Within the framework of the Range-Frequency model, we tested whether the emotional context, which is known to produce a contrast effect on valence ratings, also contributes to the regulation of interpersonal distances. 51 participants divided in two groups were shown virtual characters with either a neutral facial expression (target-stimuli) or an emotional facial expression (contextual stimuli) in two successive sessions (angry then happy emotional context or vice-versa). The participants rated the valence of the virtual characters and judged the appropriateness of different interpersonal distances. For neutral characters, contrast effect of emotional context was observed, albeit only subtly on interpersonal distance judgments. Overall, the data suggest that although the emotional context influences valence-based judgments of social stimuli, it has a parsimonious effect on interpersonal distance regulation, presumably because the latter relies primarily on emotional facial expression categorical-information.

show abstract

Action Spaces Representation in Social Contexts

Cited by 6 publications

References 126 publications

Social coding of the multisensory space around us

Social coding of the multisensory space around us

Social Context and Tool Use Can Modulate Interpersonal Comfort Space

Contrast effect of emotional context on interpersonal distance with neutral social stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About