Effects of posture on tactile localization by 4 years of age are modulated by sight of the hands: evidence for an early acquired external spatial frame of reference for touch

Adults show a deficit in their ability to localize tactile stimuli to their hands when their arms are in the less familiar, crossed posture. It is thought that this ‘crossed‐hands deficit’ arises due to a conflict between the anatomical and external spatial frames of reference within which touches can be encoded. The ability to localize a single tactile stimulus applied to one of the two hands across uncrossed‐hands and crossed‐hands postures was investigated in typically developing children (aged 4 to 6 years). The effect of posture was also compared across conditions in which children did, or did not, have visual information about current hand posture. All children, including the 4‐year‐olds, demonstrated the crossed‐hands deficit when they did not have sight of hand posture, suggesting that touch is located in an external reference frame by this age. In this youngest age group, when visual information about current hand posture was available, tactile localization performance was impaired specifically when the children's hands were uncrossed. We propose that this may be due to an early difficulty with integrating visual representations of the hand within the body schema.     

Change of reference frame for tactile localization during child development

Temporal order judgements (TOJ) for two tactile stimuli, one presented to the left and one to the right hand, are less precise when the hands are crossed over the midline than when the hands are uncrossed. This ‘crossed hand’ effect has been considered as evidence for a remapping of tactile input into an external reference frame. Since late, but not early, blind individuals show such remapping, it has been hypothesized that the use of an external reference frame develops during childhood. Five‐ to 10‐year‐old children were therefore tested with the tactile TOJ task, both with uncrossed and crossed hands. Overall performance in the TOJ task improved with age. While children older than 5½ years displayed a crossed hand effect, younger children did not. Therefore the use of an external reference frame for tactile, and possibly multisensory, localization seems to be acquired at age 5.     

Visuo-tactile links in covert exogenous spatial attention remap across changes in unseen hand posture

We investigated the effect of unseen hand posture on cross-modal, visuo-tactile links in covert spatial attention. In Experiment 1, a spatially nonpredictive visual cue was presented to the left or right hemifield shortly before a tactile target on either hand. To examine the spatial coordinates of any cross-modal cuing, the unseen hands were either uncrossed or crossed so that the left hand lay to the right and vice versa. Tactile up/down (i.e., index finger/thumb) judgments were better on the same side of external space as the visual cue, for both crossed and uncrossed postures. Thus, which hand was advantaged by a visual cue in a particular hemifield reversed across the different unseen postures. In Experiment 2, nonpredictive tactile cues now preceded visual targets. Up/down judgments for the latter were better on the same side of external space as the tactile cue, again for both postures. These results demonstrate cross-modal links between vision and touch in exogenous covert spatial attention that remap across changes in unseen hand posture, suggesting a modulatory role for proprioception.     

Integration of anatomical and external response mappings explains crossing effects in tactile localization: A probabilistic modeling approach

To act upon a tactile stimulus its original skin-based, anatomical spatial code has to be transformed into an external, posture-dependent reference frame, a process known as tactile remapping. When the limbs are crossed, anatomical and external location codes are in conflict, leading to a decline in tactile localization accuracy. It is unknown whether this impairment originates from the integration of the resulting external localization response with the original, anatomical one or from a failure of tactile remapping in crossed postures. We fitted probabilistic models based on these diverging accounts to the data from three tactile localization experiments. Hand crossing disturbed tactile left–right location choices in all experiments. Furthermore, the size of these crossing effects was modulated by stimulus configuration and task instructions. The best model accounted for these results by integration of the external response mapping with the original, anatomical one, while applying identical integration weights for uncrossed and crossed postures. Thus, the model explained the data without assuming failures of remapping. Moreover, performance differences across tasks were accounted for by non-individual parameter adjustments, indicating that individual participants’ task adaptation results from one common functional mechanism. These results suggest that remapping is an automatic and accurate process, and that the observed localization impairments in touch result from a cognitively controlled integration process that combines anatomically and externally coded responses.     

Processing load impairs coordinate integration for the localization of touch

To perform an action toward a touch, the tactile spatial representation must be transformed from a skin-based, anatomical reference frame into an external reference frame. Evidence suggests that, after transformation, both anatomical and external coordinates are integrated for the location estimate. The present study investigated whether the calculation and integration of external coordinates are automatic processes. Participants made temporal order judgments (TOJs) of two tactile stimuli, one applied to each hand, in crossed and uncrossed postures. The influence of the external coordinates of touch was indicated by the performance difference between crossed and uncrossed postures, referred to as the crossing effect. To assess automaticity, the TOJ task was combined with a working memory task that varied in difficulty (size of the working memory set) and quality (verbal vs. spatial). In two studies, the crossing effect was consistently reduced under processing load. When the load level was adaptively adjusted to individual performance (Study 2), the crossing effect additionally varied as a function of the difficulty of the secondary task. These modulatory effects of processing load on the crossing effect were independent of the type of working memory. The sensitivity of the crossing effect to processing load suggests that coordinate integration for touch localization is not fully automatic. To reconcile the present results with previous findings, we suggest that the genuine remapping process—that is, the transformation of anatomical into external coordinates—proceeds automatically, whereas their integration in service of a combined location estimate is subject to top-down control.     

Tactile stimulation and interhemispheric communication by learning disabled children: an exploratory study

33 right-handed, learning disabled children aged 8-10 yr., 11-13 yr., and 14-16 yr. were presented a tactile discrimination task. Pairs of fabrics of different or the same texture were presented to the same hand (uncrossed condition) or alternating hands (crossed condition). Analysis indicated that the total number of crossed errors was significantly greater for the youngest children. There were no significant differences between the groups for the uncrossed condition. These results suggest that younger learning disabled children may experience greater difficulty on a task which required interhemispheric transfer.     

Task-irrelevant sounds influence both temporal order and apparent-motion judgments about tactile stimuli applied to crossed and uncrossed hands

It has been suggested that judgments about the temporal–spatial order of successive tactile stimuli depend on the perceived direction of apparent motion between them. Here we manipulated tactile apparent-motion percepts by presenting a brief, task-irrelevant auditory stimulus temporally in-between pairs of tactile stimuli. The tactile stimuli were applied one to each hand, with varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). Participants reported the location of the first stimulus (temporal order judgments: TOJs) while adopting both crossed and uncrossed hand postures, so we could scrutinize skin-based, anatomical, and external reference frames. With crossed hands, the sound improved TOJ performance at short (≤300 ms) and at long (>300 ms) SOAs. When the hands were uncrossed, the sound induced a decrease in TOJ performance, but only at short SOAs. A second experiment confirmed that the auditory stimulus indeed modulated tactile apparent motion perception under these conditions. Perceived apparent motion directions were more ambiguous with crossed than with uncrossed hands, probably indicating competing spatial codes in the crossed posture. However, irrespective of posture, the additional sound tended to impair potentially anatomically coded motion direction discrimination at a short SOA of 80 ms, but it significantly enhanced externally coded apparent motion perception at a long SOA of 500 ms. Anatomically coded motion signals imply incorrect TOJ responses with crossed hands, but correct responses when the hands are uncrossed; externally coded motion signals always point toward the correct TOJ response. Thus, taken together, these results suggest that apparent-motion signals are likely taken into account when tactile temporal–spatial information is reconstructed.

     

Tactile discrimination, response mode, and interhemispheric communication by learning disabled children.

32 right-handed, learning disabled children aged 8-10 yr., 11-13 yr., and 14-16 yr. were presented a tactile discrimination task. Pairs of fabrics of different or the same texture were presented to the same hand (uncrossed condition) or alternating hands (crossed condition). Discrimination errors were compared using a verbal response mode and a nonverbal response mode. Analysis indicated that the number of crossed errors was significantly greater in the verbal response mode than in the nonverbal response mode for only the youngest children. These results suggest selective attention-activation bias and/or hemispheric processing limitations for younger learning disabled children.     

Increased visual bias in children with developmental coordination disorder: Evidence from a visual-tactile temporal order judgment task

BackgroundPrevious studies have suggested that children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) rely heavily on vision to perform movements, which may contribute to their clumsy movements. However, few studies have objectively and quantitatively investigated the perceptual biases of children with DCD.MethodsA visual-tactile temporal order judgment (TOJ) task was used to measure and compare the perceptual biases of 19 children with DCD and 19 age- and sex-matched typically developing children. The point of subjective equality, which demonstrates when “visual first” and “tactile first” judgment probabilities are equal (50%), obtained by analyzing the results of the visual-tactile TOJ task, was used as an indicator of perceptual biases. Further, variables (age and manual dexterity in all participants; motor function, autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder traits, and depressive symptoms in children with DCD) associated with perceptual biases were examined with correlation analysis.ResultsChildren with DCD had significantly stronger visual bias than typically developing children. Overall correlation analysis showed that increased visual bias was significantly correlated with poor manual dexterity.ConclusionChildren with DCD had a strong visual bias, which was associated with poor manual dexterity.     

Integration of hand and finger location in external spatial coordinates for tactile localization

Tactile stimulus location is automatically transformed from somatotopic into external spatial coordinates, rendering information about the location of touch in three-dimensional space. This process is referred to as tactile remapping. Whereas remapping seems to occur automatically for the hands and feet, the fingers may constitute an exception in that some studies have implied purely somatotopic coding of touch to the fingers. When participants judge the order of two tactile stimuli, they often err when the stimulated body parts (usually the two hands) are crossed, presumably because somatotopic and external coordinates are in conflict in crossed postures. Using this task, we investigated, first, whether the fingers are unlike other limbs with regard to spatial coding, by testing whether crossing effects, indicative of external coding, were observable when stimulating two fingers, either on the same or on different hands. Second, we investigated the interaction of hand and finger posture in tactile localization of finger stimuli. Crossing effects emerged when fingers and hands were crossed, suggesting external coding for all body parts. Crossing effects were larger when both hand and finger were located in the hemifield opposite to their body side, and smaller when only hand or finger lay in the opposite hemifield. We suggest that tactile location is estimated by integrating the external location of all relevant body parts, here of a finger and its belonging hand, and that such integrative coding may represent a general principle for body part processing as well as for tool use.     

Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves

When the apparent visual location of a body part conflicts with its veridical location, vision can dominate proprioception and kinesthesia. In this article, we show that vision can capture tactile localization. Participants discriminated the location of vibrotactile stimuli (upper, at the index finger, vs. lower, at the thumb), while ignoring distractor lights that could independently be upper or lower. Such tactile discriminations were slowed when the distractor light was incongruent with the tactile target (e.g., an upper light during lower touch) rather than congruent, especially when the lights appeared near the stimulated hand. The hands were occluded under a table, with all distractor lights above the table. The effect of the distractor lights increased when rubber hands were placed on the table, 'holding' the distractor lights, but only when the rubber hands were spatially aligned with the participant's own hands. In this aligned situation, participants were more likely to report the illusion of feeling touch at the rubber hands. Such visual capture of touch appears cognitively impenetrable.     

Children with developmental coordination disorder are equally able to generate force but show more variability than typically developing children

Several studies have suggested that children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) have difficulties in the fine-tuning of manual force. However, parameterization of the generated force per se is hard to test under normal circumstances as movement planning and execution are also involved. In the present study, an isometric force production task was used to test the hypothesis that children with DCD have a decreased ability to scale force to a required force level and to maintain steady low to submaximal forces. We also tested if the developmental trends were different between the children with DCD and typically developing (TD) children. Twenty-four children with DCD and 24 matched TD children, divided over three age groups (7-9-11 years) participated in this study. Analysis of the data showed that DCD and TD children are equally able to adapt their generated force to the required levels, however DCD children produced a less steady force, even more variable than in the youngest TD children. These results suggest that problems in force control in children with DCD are caused by a higher level of inherent noise of the output system. Since younger DCD children are much more affected than older ones it is suggested that these children are able to learn a strategy to cope with their increased stochastic variability, especially at higher force levels.     

Task effects on tactile temporal order judgments: when space does and does not matter

The ability to report the temporal order of 2 tactile stimuli (1 applied to each hand) has been shown to decline when the arms are crossed over compared with when they are uncrossed. However, these effects have only been measured when temporal order was reported by stimulus location. It is unknown whether this spatial manipulation of the body affects all tactile temporal order judgments (TOJs) or only those judgments that are spatially defined. The authors examined the effect of crossing the arms on tactile TOJs when stimuli were identified by either spatial (location) or nonspatial (frequency or duration) attributes. Spatial TOJs were significantly impaired when the arms were in crossed compared with uncrossed postures, but there was no effect of posture when order was judged by nonspatial attributes. Task-dependent modulation of the effects of posture was also evident when response complexity was reduced to go/no-go responses. These results suggest that crossing the arms impairs tactile localization and thus spatial TOJs. However, the data also suggest that localization is not a necessary precursor when temporal order can be computed by nonspatial means.     

On the inability to ignore touch when responding to vision in the crossmodal congruency task

We investigated the extent to which people can selectively ignore distracting vibrotactile information when performing a visual task. In Experiment 1, participants made speeded elevation discrimination responses (up vs. down) to a series of visual targets presented from one of two eccentricities on either side of central fixation, while simultaneously trying to ignore task-irrelevant vibrotactile distractors presented independently to the finger (up) vs. thumb (down) of either hand. Participants responded significantly more slowly, and somewhat less accurately, when the elevation of the vibrotactile distractor was incongruent with that of the visual target than when they were presented from the same (i.e., congruent) elevation. This crossmodal congruency effect was significantly larger when the visual and tactile stimuli appeared on the same side of space than when they appeared on different sides, although the relative eccentricity of the two stimuli within the hemifield (i.e., same vs. different) had little effect on performance. In Experiment 2, participants who crossed their hands over the midline showed a very different pattern of crossmodal congruency effects to participants who adopted an uncrossed hands posture. Our results suggest that both the relative external location and the initial hemispheric projection of the target and distractor stimuli contribute jointly to determining the magnitude of the crossmodal congruency effect when participants have to respond to vision and ignore touch.     

Crossing the arms confuses the clocks: Sensory feedback and the bimanual advantage

The bimanual advantage refers to the finding that tapping with two fingers on opposite hands exhibits reduced timing variability, as compared with tapping with only one finger. Two leading theories propose that the bimanual advantage results from the addition of either sensory (i.e., enhanced feedback) or cognitive (i.e., multiple timekeeper) processes involved in timing. Given that crossing the arms impairs perception of tactile stimuli and modulates cortical activation following tactile stimulation, we investigated the role of crossing the arms in the bimanual advantage. Participants tapped unimanually or bimanually with their arms crossed or uncrossed on a tabletop or in the air. With arms crossed, we expected increased interval timing variance. Similarly, for air tapping, we expected reduced bimanual advantage, due to reduced sensory feedback. A significant bimanual advantage was observed for the uncrossed, but not the crossed posture in tabletop tapping. Furthermore, removing tactile feedback from taps eliminated the bimanual advantage for both postures. Together, these findings suggest that crossing the arms likely impairs integration of internal (i.e., effector-specific) and external (i.e., environment-specific) information and that this multisensory integration is crucial to reducing timing variability during repetitive coordinated bimanual tasks.     

Sensitivity to auditory‐tactile colocation in early infancy

An ability to detect the common location of multisensory stimulation is essential for us to perceive a coherent environment, to represent the interface between the body and the external world, and to act on sensory information. Regarding the tactile environment “at hand”, we need to represent somatosensory stimuli impinging on the skin surface in the same spatial reference frame as distal stimuli, such as those transduced by vision and audition. Across two experiments we investigated whether 6‐ (n = 14; Experiment 1) and 4‐month‐old (n = 14; Experiment 2) infants were sensitive to the colocation of tactile and auditory signals delivered to the hands. We recorded infants’ visual preferences for spatially congruent and incongruent auditory‐tactile events delivered to their hands. At 6 months, infants looked longer toward incongruent stimuli, whilst at 4 months infants looked longer toward congruent stimuli. Thus, even from 4 months of age, infants are sensitive to the colocation of simultaneously presented auditory and tactile stimuli. We conclude that 4‐ and 6‐month‐old infants can represent auditory and tactile stimuli in a common spatial frame of reference. We explain the age‐wise shift in infants’ preferences from congruent to incongruent in terms of an increased preference for novel crossmodal spatial relations based on the accumulation of experience. A comparison of looking preferences across the congruent and incongruent conditions with a unisensory control condition indicates that the ability to perceive auditory‐tactile colocation is based on a crossmodal rather than a supramodal spatial code by 6 months of age at least.     

Perceptual skills of children with developmental coordination disorder

The aim of this study was to investigate whether children with a Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) experience problems in the processing of visual, proprioceptive or tactile information. Different aspects of visual perception were tested with the Developmental Test of Visual Perception (DTVP-2), tactile perception was assessed with the Tactual Performance Test (TPT), and a manual pointing task was employed to measure the ability to use visual and proprioceptive information in goal-directed movements. Nineteen children with DCD and nineteen age and sex-matched controls participated in this study. Differences between groups were most pronounced in the subtests measuring visual-motor integration of the DTVP-2, and in two subtests measuring visual perception (visual closure and position in space). On average the children with DCD performed slightly below the norm for tactile perception, with only three children failing the norm. On the manual pointing task, children with DCD made inconsistent responses towards the targets in all three conditions (visual, visual-proprioceptive and proprioceptive condition). No significant differences between groups were found for absolute error. Inspection of the individual data revealed that only two children failed on the majority of perceptual tasks in the three modalities. Across tasks, no consistent pattern of deficits appeared, illustrating the heterogeneity of the problems of children with DCD.     

Visual Information and the Control of Reaching in Children: A Comparison Between Children With and Without Developmental Coordination Disorder

Three experiments were performed on reach and grasp in 9- to 10-year-old children (8 controls and 8 with developmental coordination disorder [DCD]). In normal reaching, children in the DCD group were less responsive to the accuracy demands of the task in controlling the transport component of prehension and spent less time in the deceleration phase of hand transport. When vision was removed as movement began, children in the control group spent more time decelerating and reached peak aperture earlier. Children in the DCD group did not do that, although, like the control group, they did increase grip aperture in the dark. When depth cues were reduced and only the target or only the target and hand were visible, children in the control group used target information to maintain the same grip aperture in all conditions, but DCD children behaved as if the target was not visible. Throughout the studies, the control group of 9- to 10-year-olds did not produce adult-like adaptations to reduced vision, suggesting that they had not yet attained adult-like integration of sensory input. Compared with control children, children with DCD did not exhibit increased dependence on vision but showed less recognition of accuracy demands, less adaptation to the removal of vision, and less use of minimal visual information when it was available.     

Crossmodal links between vision and touch in covert endogenous spatial attention

The authors report a series of 6 experiments investigating crossmodal links between vision and touch in covert endogenous spatial attention. When participants were informed that visual and tactile targets were more likely on 1 side than the other, speeded discrimination responses (continuous vs. pulsed, Experiments 1 and 2; or up vs. down, Experiment 3) for targets in both modalities were significantly faster on the expected side, even though target modality was entirely unpredictable. When participants expected a target on a particular side in just one modality, corresponding shifts of covert attention also took place in the other modality, as evidenced by faster elevation judgments on that side (Experiment 4). Larger attentional effects were found when directing visual and tactile attention to the same position rather than to different positions (Experiment 5). A final study with crossed hands revealed that these visuotactile links in spatial attention apply to common positions in external space.     

The effect of hand position and pattern motion on temporal order judgments

Subjects made temporal order judgments (TOJs) of tactile stimuli presented to the fingerpads. The subjects judged which one of two locations had been stimulated first. The tactile stimuli were patterns that simulated movement across the fingerpads. Although irrelevant to the task, the direction of movement of the patterns biased the TOJs. If the pattern at one location moved in the direction of the second location, the subjects tended to judge the first location as leading the second location. If the pattern moved in the opposite direction, that location was judged as trailing. In a series of experiments, the effect of the spatial position of the hands and fingers on TOJs and the perception of the direction of pattern movement were examined. Changing the position of the hands so that the patterns no longer moved directly toward each other reduced or eliminated the effect of motion on TOJs. In a variation of Aristotle's illusion, the moving patterns were presented to crossed and uncrossed fingers. The results indicated that, contrary to Aristotle's illusion, the subjects processed the moving patterns relative to an environmental framework, rather than to the local direction of motion on the fingerpads. Presenting the patterns to crossed hands produced results similar to those obtained with crossed fingers: The subjects processed the patterns according to an environmental framework.