Does tool use extend peripersonal space? A review and re-analysis

Holmes, Nicholas P.

doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3042-7

Cited by 96 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, we confirmed that there was an interaction between vision and touch, as reflected in the crossmodal congruency effect (CCE) for complex tools such as robotic manipulators. This finding extends studies on multisensory integration using a robotic setting with virtual hands ) and previous tool-use studies with physical tools (Maravita and Iriki 2004;Holmes 2012) and with virtual tools . Second, we showed that the same side CCE was stronger after tool use with FFB as opposed to tool use without FFB.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Force feedback facilitates multisensory integration during robotic tool use

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the first experiment it was found that tool-use training with force feedback facilitates multisensory integration of signals from the tool, as reflected in a stronger crossmodal congruency effect with the force feedback training compared to training without force feedback and to no training. The second experiment extends these findings by showing that training with realistic online force feedback resulted in a stronger crossmodal congruency effect compared to training in which force feedback was delayed. The present study highlights the importance of haptic information for multisensory integration and extends findings from classical tool-use studies to the domain of robotic tools. We argue that such crossmodal congruency effects are an objective measure of robotic tool integration and propose some potential applications in surgical robotics, robotic tools, and human-tool interaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Force feedback facilitates multisensory integration during robotic tool use

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was thus suggested that using a tool modifies the representation of the limb within the body schema (Cardinali et al, 2009(Cardinali et al, , 2012. As a consequence, modifying the body schema through tool use was found to modify reachability perception (Bourgeois et al, 2014;Witt, Proffitt, & Epstein, 2005) and the representation of peripersonal space (Maravita et al, 2002;Holmes, 2012;Holmes & Spence, 2004). However, whether altering peripersonal space representation also modifies interpersonal distance has not been studied so far, and this represents the aim of the present study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

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

Quesque

Ruggiero

Mouta

et al. 2016

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peripersonal space represents the area around the body where objects are coded in motor terms for the purpose of voluntary goal-directed actions. Previous studies have suggested that peripersonal space is also a safe space linked with our private area, influencing interpersonal space in social contexts. However, whether these two spaces rely on similar embodied processes remains an open issue. In the present study, participants observed a point-light walker (PLW) approaching them from different directions and passing near them at different distances from their right or left shoulder. While approaching, the PLW disappeared at a distance of 2 m and the task for the participants was to estimate if the interpersonal distance, at the time the PLW would have reached their level, was comfortable or not. Between two sessions of comfort judgments, the participants manipulated a 70 cm tool entailing an extension of peripersonal space, or a 10 cm tool entailing no extension of peripersonal space. The results revealed that the comfortable interpersonal distance was larger when the PLW crossed the mid-sagittal plane of the participants than when it approached them laterally, with a concomitant increase of response time. After participants manipulated the long tool, comfortable interpersonal distance increased, but predominantly when the PLW trajectory implied crossing the participants' mid-sagittal plane. This effect was not observed when participants manipulated the short tool. Two control tasks showed that using the long tool modified the reachability (control 1), but not the time to passage (control 2) estimates of PLW stimuli, suggesting that tool use extended peripersonal space without changing perceived visual distances. Overall, the data show that comfortable interpersonal distance is linked to the representation of peripersonal space. As a consequence, increasing peripersonal space through tool use has the immediate consequence that comfortable interpersonal distance from another person also increases, suggesting that interpersonal-comfort space and peripersonal-reaching space share a common motor nature.

show abstract

“…Although phenomenological embodiment is likely to increase the acceptance of augmentation technology, it also raises potential confounds. First, the experience of the body as our own is relatively rigid 7 ; contrary to folk wisdom, we do not experience ownership over most of the tools that we use 8 (even those with which we are proficient with), suggesting that phenomenological embodiment may be difficult to achieve. Second, embodiment could also be limiting; for instance, the range of actions carried out with augmentation technology would be far more limited if we were to protect it in the way we protect the human body.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%