Body Space in Social Interactions: A Comparison of Reaching and Comfort Distance in Immersive Virtual Reality

Abstract

BackgroundDo peripersonal space for acting on objects and interpersonal space for interacting with con-specifics share common mechanisms and reflect the social valence of stimuli? To answer this question, we investigated whether these spaces refer to a similar or different physical distance.MethodologyParticipants provided reachability-distance (for potential action) and comfort-distance (for social processing) judgments towards human and non-human virtual stimuli while standing still (passive) or walking toward stimuli (active).Principal FindingsComfort-distance was larger than other conditions when participants were passive, but reachability and comfort distances were similar when participants were active. Both spaces were modulated by the social valence of stimuli (reduction with virtual females vs males, expansion with cylinder vs robot) and the gender of participants.ConclusionsThese findings reveal that peripersonal reaching and interpersonal comfort spaces share a common motor nature and are sensitive, at different degrees, to social modulation. Therefore, social processing seems embodied and grounded in the body acting in space.

Keeping you at arm’s length: modifying peripersonal space influences interpersonal distance

“…Altogether, these data corroborated the view that perceiving reachable objects involves the motor system (Proverbio, 2012), but depending on their location in peripersonal space (Quinlan & Culham, 2007). Numerous studies have emphasized that peripersonal space is also a safety space (Coello, Bourgeois, & Iachini, 2012;Lockard et al, 1977;Szpak et al, 2015;Rossetti et al, 2015), linked with our private area in social contexts (Iachini, Coello, Frassinetti, & Ruggiero, 2014). In this regard, Hall (1966) and later Hayduk (1978) were the first to suggest that social interactions require accurate control of interpersonal distances.…”

“…In this regard, Hall (1966) and later Hayduk (1978) were the first to suggest that social interactions require accurate control of interpersonal distances. This underlines that delimiting peripersonal space may be crucial not only for the regulation of interactions with objects, but also for our social life (Iachini et al, 2014). Indeed, interacting with conspecifics represents a complex task, implying coming close to someone to verbally interact or physically cooperate, but paying attention to not generate discomfort due to the proximity.…”

Peripersonal Space: An Index of Multisensory Body–Environment Interactions in Real, Virtual, and Mixed Realities

“…Since the main property of the PPS system is in integrating tactile processing with external stimuli when these occur within the PPS (Maravita et al, 2003), the critical distance at which the sound or visual stimuli speed up tactile RTs is taken as a proxy of PPS extension. Such measure has been reliably used to study precisely the extent of individual's PPS (Ferri et al, 2015a,b;Serino, 2016), its plastic and dynamic modification following different kinds of sensory manipulations (Canzoneri et al, 2013b;Ferri et al, 2015a,b;Noel et al, 2015a,b;Serino et al, 2015b;Patané et al, 2016) and following interactions, such as social interactions (Teneggi et al, 2013;Iachini et al, 2014;Pellencin et al, 2017).…”

Detecting peripersonal space: The promising role of ultrasonics

“…One could concern that this companion variation may simply reflect a general autonomic activity sustained by subcortical network activation, as observed in a typical startle response (in that, a stimulus approaching toward the face), being thus unrelated to PPS perturbation. Nonetheless, the motor tasks we employed require at least one or more among physical, psychological, and mental effort to be executed, depending on the hand‐to‐face distance (for purposeful or reflex actions to be eventually planned and executed), the comfort distance (for potential interactions with the experimenter within participant's PPS), judgments toward stimuli while during passive or active task—namely participant's or experimenter's hand (Ferri, Ardizzi, Ambrosecchia, & Gallese, 2013; Iachini, Coello, Frassinetti, & Ruggiero, 2014; Proulx, Todorov, Taylor Aiken, & de Sousa, 2016). Therefore, HR changes may represent a specific marker of PPS perturbation.…”

“…In keeping with the presence of another individual within the participant's PPS, one could hypothesize the involvement of social issues of the PPS, given that social environment and the presence and interaction with others shape the PPS representation, and PPS mediates the interaction with other targets (objects/individuals) (Fossataro, Sambo, Garbarini, & Iannetti, 2016; Iachini et al., 2014; Pellencin, Paladino, Herbelin, & Serino, 2017; Quesque et al., 2017; Teneggi, Canzoneri, di Pellegrino, & Serino, 2013). Beyond social interaction issues, CBF during passive mobilization was likely triggered by both the tactile inputs to the individual by the experimenter and the proprioceptive feedback related to the arm position toward the face.…”