Cargando…
Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation
Spatial action–effect binding denotes the mutual attraction between the perceived position of an effector (e.g., one’s own hand) and a distal object that is controlled by this effector. Such spatial binding can be construed as an implicit measure of object ownership, thus the belonging of a controll...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343754/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32130655 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02013-2 |
_version_ | 1783555814384992256 |
---|---|
author | Liesner, Marvin Kirsch, Wladimir Pfister, Roland Kunde, Wilfried |
author_facet | Liesner, Marvin Kirsch, Wladimir Pfister, Roland Kunde, Wilfried |
author_sort | Liesner, Marvin |
collection | PubMed |
description | Spatial action–effect binding denotes the mutual attraction between the perceived position of an effector (e.g., one’s own hand) and a distal object that is controlled by this effector. Such spatial binding can be construed as an implicit measure of object ownership, thus the belonging of a controlled object to the own body. The current study investigated how different transformations of hand movements (body-internal action component) into movements of a visual object (body-external action component) affect spatial action–effect binding, and thus implicit object ownership. In brief, participants had to bring a cursor on the computer screen into a predefined target position by moving their occluded hand on a tablet and had to estimate their final hand position. In Experiment 1, we found a significantly lower drift of the proprioceptive position of the hand towards the visual object when hand movements were transformed into laterally inverted cursor movements, rather than cursor movements in the same direction. Experiment 2 showed that this reduction reflected an elimination of spatial action–effect binding in the inverted condition. The results are discussed with respect to the prerequisites for an experience of ownership over artificial, noncorporeal objects. Our results show that predictability of an object movement alone is not a sufficient condition for ownership because, depending on the type of transformation, integration of the effector and a distal object can be fully abolished even under conditions of full controllability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7343754 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73437542020-07-13 Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation Liesner, Marvin Kirsch, Wladimir Pfister, Roland Kunde, Wilfried Atten Percept Psychophys Article Spatial action–effect binding denotes the mutual attraction between the perceived position of an effector (e.g., one’s own hand) and a distal object that is controlled by this effector. Such spatial binding can be construed as an implicit measure of object ownership, thus the belonging of a controlled object to the own body. The current study investigated how different transformations of hand movements (body-internal action component) into movements of a visual object (body-external action component) affect spatial action–effect binding, and thus implicit object ownership. In brief, participants had to bring a cursor on the computer screen into a predefined target position by moving their occluded hand on a tablet and had to estimate their final hand position. In Experiment 1, we found a significantly lower drift of the proprioceptive position of the hand towards the visual object when hand movements were transformed into laterally inverted cursor movements, rather than cursor movements in the same direction. Experiment 2 showed that this reduction reflected an elimination of spatial action–effect binding in the inverted condition. The results are discussed with respect to the prerequisites for an experience of ownership over artificial, noncorporeal objects. Our results show that predictability of an object movement alone is not a sufficient condition for ownership because, depending on the type of transformation, integration of the effector and a distal object can be fully abolished even under conditions of full controllability. Springer US 2020-03-04 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7343754/ /pubmed/32130655 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02013-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Liesner, Marvin Kirsch, Wladimir Pfister, Roland Kunde, Wilfried Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation |
title | Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation |
title_full | Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation |
title_fullStr | Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation |
title_full_unstemmed | Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation |
title_short | Spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation |
title_sort | spatial action–effect binding depends on type of action–effect transformation |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343754/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32130655 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02013-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liesnermarvin spatialactioneffectbindingdependsontypeofactioneffecttransformation AT kirschwladimir spatialactioneffectbindingdependsontypeofactioneffecttransformation AT pfisterroland spatialactioneffectbindingdependsontypeofactioneffecttransformation AT kundewilfried spatialactioneffectbindingdependsontypeofactioneffecttransformation |