Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand.

Reed, Catherine L.; Grubb, Jefferson D.; Steele, Cleophus

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.166

Cited by 265 publications

(432 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

388

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One aspect of our results that seems inconsistent with those of Reed et al (2006), who cued attention along the horizontal dimension, is the absence of any passive hand position effect on detection times in the depth-cuing task. Although this could suggest that attentional prioritization of the passive hand is restricted to situations in which attention is cued along the horizontal dimension, an alternative explanation is that this inconsistency is related to the difference in proximity between the passive hand and the target stimulus in the two studies.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…The nonresponding hand was placed at either the near or the far target depth, while the responding hand was moved away from the target scene. If alignment in depth of the passive hand and the target is sufficient for attention to be prioritized to the passive hand in the depth-cuing task, an overall detection time bias (independent from cue validity) may be revealed at the target location most proximal to the passive hand, in line with the attentional prioritization effect observed in horizontal cuing tasks (Reed et al, 2006).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Reed et al (2006) showed that when attention is cued along the horizontal dimension and only the nonresponding hand is horizontally aligned with one of the two target locations, spatial attention is biased toward this hand's location, resulting in an overall benefit in detection times to the proximal target (independent from cue validity). In Experiment 2 of the present study, detection times to valid targets and to invalid cued targets at the near target location did not vary as a function of passive hand position (PHP).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A different line of evidence suggests that under certain task conditions, attention is prioritized to the location of the viewer's hand, even when this hand is not used for responding (Reed, Grubb, & Steele, 2006). Reed et al used a horizontal cuing task (presented on a computer screen) instructed to attend near in response to the blue cue light, and to attend far in response to the green cue light.…”

Section: Experiments 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reed et al further showed that the extent of the prioritized area around the passive hand was relatively small, because the effect disappeared when the hand was placed toward the side of the computer screen, increasing the horizontal distance between the stimulus and the hand to 11 cm. The consistency between this pattern of results and characteristics of bimodal neurons in peripersonal space (see, e.g., Graziano & Gross, 1995) suggests that the attentional prioritization effect is likely to reflect the influence of bimodal hand-centered representations on spatial attention (Reed et al, 2006). The accumulating evidence for hand-centered attention in peripersonal space raises the question of whether allocation of spatial attention in the depth-cuing task is influenced by the position of the response hand.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Influence of hand position on the near effect in 3-D attention

Pollux

Bourke

2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 20 years, evidence for a depth-aware representation underlying spatial attention has accumulated. Studies investigating the nature of selective attention in 3-D space have reported reliable effects of location cues to near and far locations on performance measures in real depth situations (Couyoumdjian, Di Nocera, & Ferlazzo, 2003;Downing & Pinker, 1985;Gawryszewski, Riggio, Rizzolatti, & Umiltà, 1987), in stereoscopic displays (e.g., Atchley, Kramer, Andersen, & Theeuwes, 1997;Bourke, Partridge, & Pollux, 2006;Theeuwes, Atchley, & Kramer, 1998), in perceived space (Han, Wan, & Humphreys, 2005), and within pictorial scenes (Parks & Corballis, 2006). Particularly in real depth experimental situations, deployment of attention is characterized by an asymmetric effect of spatial cuing, first referred to as the near effect by Gawryszewski et al. in 1987. In their study, spatial attention was cued at fixation with high probability to one of two target LEDs, one located near the viewer and the second at a depth beyond fixation, but still within reach. Their results showed that detection times were greater when the target was presented at the uncued location, but also that this effect of cuing varied with direction. Detection times for targets at the far location when attention had been cued to the near LED were greater than when attention had been cued to the far location and the target was presented at the near LED (Gawryszewski et al., 1987). Comparable asymmetric effects have been observed within pictorial scenes (Parks & Corballis, 2006) and in stereoscopic depth, where reorienting from near to far locations is associated with greater error costs (Atchley et al., 1997; but see , for an exception). A few studies have shown that the distribution of attention in depth is characterized by a gradient that is maximal at attentional focus and declines at more peripheral locations (Andersen, 1990;Downing & Pinker, 1985). Andersen presented random-dot stereograms of horizontal or vertical bars at the center with distractor bars presented at either the same or different depths as the center bars, and found that performance declined as a function of distance from attentional focus. Downing and Pinker also showed that the cost of reorienting to stimuli at uncued locations in real space (varying in horizontal distance and in depth) was greater when the uncued target was at a different depth. Their analysis of reorienting cost in relation to distance from attentional focus further showed that attention seems to decline as a function of a gradient defined in terms of visual-angle separation, and that this decline is stronger for stimuli presented at a depth different from that of the attentional focus.The number of studies reporting the near effect is increasing, but little is known about the processes underlying the effect. In Gawryszewski et al.'s (1987) original explanation, the near effect was associated with a viewercentered spatial representation accessed for guiding attention in 3-D space. They proposed that...

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 95%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Influence of hand position on the near effect in 3-D attention

Pollux

Bourke

2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Perception and Action

Witt

2018

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of perception and action challenge the current mainstream model of the mind that processing is sequential from perceiving to thinking to acting. Three challenges of this model are that action is often for the purpose of perception, perception depends on action, and perception and action share a common currency. Many actions are taken with the purpose of enriching the information for perception—making action the start, rather than the end, of mental processing. Perception depends on action, as demonstrated by the role for action in perceptual development, perception of biological motion, spatial perception, and perhaps all of perception, according to Gibson's ecological approach. In turn, actions are learned, selected, and controlled by their perceptual outcomes, thus making perception and action share a common language with each other. Action and perception should be considered in relation to each other.

show abstract

Learning By Tracing Worked Examples

Ginns

Byrne

et al. 2015

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive load theorists have only recently begun to test the role of the body in learning. Tracing the index finger over the surface of instructions while reading, an embodied pedagogy based on Montessori's sandpaper letters, may hold substantial promise for learning by reducing cognitive load. Two experiments tested whether students who traced their index fingers against paper-based worked example instructions in triangle geometry (Experiment 1; N = 52) and order of operations (Experiment 2; N = 54) would perform better on a subsequent test than students who only studied the materials visually. Students in the tracing condition outperformed the non-tracing condition on transfer problems in both Experiment 1 (d = .78) and Experiment 1 (d = .50), but hypotheses regarding self-reports of cognitive load during testing were not supported. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand.

Cited by 265 publications

References 48 publications

Influence of hand position on the near effect in 3-D attention

Influence of hand position on the near effect in 3-D attention

Perception and Action

Learning By Tracing Worked Examples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About