Literature DB >> 1944886

Direction of gaze during vibrotactile choice reaction time tasks.

J M Pierson1, J L Bradshaw, T F Meyer, M J Howard, J A Bradshaw.   

Abstract

A vibrotactile choice reaction time (RT) task was used, with the hands in their own hemispace (arms uncrossed), and in their opposite hemispace (arms crossed). Gaze was directed at the stimulated and responding hand, away from it at the other (inactive) hand, or at a central fixation point (a neutral control). Responses were slower in the crossed than the uncrossed condition. Further, in the crossed condition, responses were faster when subjects looked at the stimulated and responding hand, rather than at the inactive hand or at the central fixation point. As RT in the latter two conditions did not differ, there is a benefit when subjects look at the stimulated and responding hand, rather than a cost when they look at the inactive hand. In the look at condition, visual or attentional factors may reduce the response coding conflict which occurs when arms are crossed.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1944886     DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(91)90056-e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  9 in total

1.  Mislocalizations of touch to a fake hand.

Authors:  Erin L Austen; Salvador Soto-Faraco; James T Enns; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.282

2.  Interacting effects of vision and attention in perceiving spontaneous sensations arising on the hands.

Authors:  George A Michael; Marie-Agnès Dupuy; Amélie Deleuze; Margaux Humblot; Bilitys Simon; Janick Naveteur
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  The effect of gaze direction on sound localization in brain-injured and normal adults.

Authors:  Eunhui Lie; H Branch Coslett
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-09-29       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Hand-hemispace spatial compatibility, precueing, and stimulus-onset asynchrony.

Authors:  J L Bradshaw; C J Willmott; C Umiltà; J G Phillips; J A Bradshaw; J B Mattingley
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  1994

5.  Proprioceptive cues modulate further processing of spatially congruent auditory information. a high-density EEG study.

Authors:  S L Simon-Dack; W A Teder-Sälejärvi
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-09-19       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Spatial constraints on visual-tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects.

Authors:  Charles Spence; Francesco Pavani; Jon Driver
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  Differential effects of non-informative vision and visual interference on haptic spatial processing.

Authors:  Robert Volcic; Joram J van Rheede; Albert Postma; Astrid M L Kappers
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 8.  A Conceptual Model of Tactile Processing across Body Features of Size, Shape, Side, and Spatial Location.

Authors:  Luigi Tamè; Elena Azañón; Matthew R Longo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-02-26

9.  Losing one's hand: visual-proprioceptive conflict affects touch perception.

Authors:  Alessia Folegatti; Frédérique de Vignemont; Francesco Pavani; Yves Rossetti; Alessandro Farnè
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-09-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.