Processing of tactile spatial information with crossed fingers

The erroneous perception of two objects when one object is touched with crossed fingers has been explained as an inability of the brain to correctly perceive the crossed fingers' positions. This account is examined in Experiment 1, in which the perceived position of stimuli touching the crossed fingers is mapped. Crossing the third finger over the fourth displaced the perceived stimulus position counter-clockwise; crossing the third under the fourth displaced perceptions clockwise. In Experiment 2, perceived positions were found to fit a model of tactile saturation past the point of the functional range of action of the fingers. Two major conclusions are drawn: (a) Tactile stimuli are always perceived as if fingers were uncrossed, and (b) spatial mapping is present only within the functional range of finger excursion.     

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.     

Localization of tactile stimuli and body parts in space: two dissociated perceptual experiences revealed by a lack of constancy in the presence of position sense and motor activity

Two motor acts were analyzed at the level of tongue and fingers. These motor acts generated illusions. When subjects voluntarily rotated the tongue by 90 degrees, the perceived orientation of a tactile stimulus applied to the tongue did not covary with the perceived orientation of the tongue itself. Analogously, when subjects voluntarily crossed two adjacent fingers, the perceived position of two tactile stimuli applied to the fingers did not covary with the perceived position of the fingers themselves. Although tongue and fingers were positioned accurately in space, a lack of perceptual constancy occurred for tactile stimuli applied to these body parts. Therefore, whereas position sense was preserved, correct localization of objects was lost. The occurrence of this perceptual dissociation suggests that spatial localization of tactile stimuli may be independent both of knowledge of body part location and motor activity.     

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.     

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.

     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The crossed-hands deficit in tactile temporal-order judgments: the effect of training

Several recent studies have shown that judgments of temporal order for tactile stimuli presented to the two hands are greatly affected by crossing the hands. The size of the threshold for judging temporal order may be up to four times larger with the hands crossed as compared to the hands uncrossed. The results from these recent studies suggest that with crossed hands, contrary to many situations involving the integration of tactile and proprioceptive information, subjects have difficulty in adjusting their perception of tactile inputs to correspond with the spatial positions of the hands. In the present study we examined the effect of training in judging temporal order on the size of this crossed-hands deficit--the difference in the thresholds for temporal-order judgments when the hands are crossed and uncrossed. All training procedures produced significant declines in the size of the deficit. With training, the difference between crossed-hands and uncrossed-hands temporal-order thresholds dropped from several hundred milliseconds to as little as 19 ms. A group of percussionists with experience in playing with crossed hands showed the same crossed-hands effects as non-musicians. The results were consistent in showing that the crossed-hands deficit was never completely eliminated but was greatly reduced with training. The implication is that subjects are able to adjust to the crossed-hands posture with modest amounts of training. The results are discussed in terms of the explanations that have been offered for the crossed-hands deficit.     

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.     

Spatial patterns in tactile perception: is there a tactile field?

Previous studies of tactile spatial perception focussed either on a single point of stimulation, on local patterns within a single skin region such as the fingertip, on tactile motion, or on active touch. It remains unclear whether we should speak of a tactile field, analogous to the visual field, and supporting spatial relations between stimulus locations. Here we investigate this question by studying perception of large-scale tactile spatial patterns on the hand, arm and back. Experiment 1 investigated the relation between perception of tactile patterns and the identification of subsets of those patterns. The results suggest that perception of tactile spatial patterns is based on representing the spatial relations between locations of individual stimuli. Experiment 2 investigated the spatial and temporal organising principles underlying these relations. Experiment 3 showed that tactile pattern perception makes reference to structural representations of the body, such as body parts separated by joints. Experiment 4 found that precision of pattern perception is poorer for tactile patterns that extend across the midline, compared to unilateral patterns. Overall, the results suggest that the human sense of touch involves a tactile field, analogous to the visual field. The tactile field supports computation of spatial relations between individual stimulus locations, and thus underlies tactile pattern perception.     

Spatial localization of touch in the first year of life: early influence of a visual spatial code and the development of remapping across changes in limb position

Two experiments investigated infants' ability to localize tactile sensations in peripersonal space. Infants aged 10 months (Experiment 1) and 6.5 months (Experiment 2) were presented with vibrotactile stimuli unpredictably to either hand while they adopted either a crossed- or uncrossed-hands posture. At 6.5 months, infants' responses were predominantly manual, whereas at 10 months, visual orienting behavior was more evident. Analyses of the direction of the responses indicated that (a) both age groups were able to locate tactile stimuli, (b) the ability to remap visual and manual responses to tactile stimuli across postural changes develops between 6.5 and 10 months of age, and (c) the 6.5-month-olds were biased to respond manually in the direction appropriate to the more familiar uncrossed-hands posture across both postures. The authors argue that there is an early visual influence on tactile spatial perception and suggest that the ability to remap visual and manual directional responses across changes in posture develops between 6.5 and 10 months, most likely because of the experience of crossing the midline gained during this period.     

触觉时序知觉手臂交叉效应的性别差异

本研究探讨触觉时序知觉的手臂交叉效应是否存在性别差异。通过两个实验在较短和较长的SOA条件下考察男性和女性被试在基于体觉和基于外部空间的触觉时序判断任务中的表现。结果表明,男性与女性被试在基于体觉和基于外部空间的触觉时序判断任务中均存在手臂交叉效应,SOA较短时男性被试的手臂交叉效应显著小于女性被试,但在SOA较长的条件下手臂交叉效应没有明显的性别差异。触觉时序知觉手臂交叉效应的性别差异可能与空间知觉能力和生理解剖学因素有关。     

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.     

Tactile enumeration of small quantities using one hand

Our study explores various aspects of enumerating small quantities in the tactile modality. Fingertips of one hand were stimulated by a vibro-tactile apparatus (for 100/800 ms). Between 1 and 5 stimuli were presented to the right or the left hand and applied to neighboring (e.g., thumb–index–middle) or non-neighboring (e.g., thumb–middle–pinkie) fingers. The results showed a moderate increase in RT up to 4 stimuli and then a decrease for 5 stimuli. Right hand stimulation evoked more accurate performance than left hand stimulation only under short exposures (100 ms). Importantly, when the stimuli were presented to neighboring fingers, the accuracy rate was higher and the RT was faster than when presented to non-neighboring fingers. We discuss the results and suggest that when the stimuli are presented to one hand the subitizing range is 4 rather than 3. Furthermore, the right hand advantage and the efficiency for neighboring fingers are further support for the association between number and spatial arrangement of the fingers.     

Categorical perception of tactile distance

The tactile surface forms a continuous sheet covering the body. And yet, the perceived distance between two touches varies across stimulation sites. Perceived tactile distance is larger when stimuli cross over the wrist, compared to when both fall on either the hand or the forearm. This effect could reflect a categorical distortion of tactile space across body-part boundaries (in which stimuli crossing the wrist boundary are perceptually elongated) or may simply reflect a localised increased in acuity surrounding anatomical landmarks (in which stimuli near the wrist are perceptually elongated). We tested these two interpretations across two experiments, by comparing a well-documented bias to perceive mediolateral tactile distances across the forearm/hand as larger than proximodistal ones along the forearm/hand at three different sites (hand, wrist, and forearm). According to the ‘categorical’ interpretation, tactile distances should be elongated selectively in the proximodistal axis thus reducing the anisotropy. According to the ‘localised acuity’ interpretation, distances will be perceptually elongated in the vicinity of the wrist regardless of orientation, leading to increased overall size without affecting anisotropy. Consistent with the categorical account, we found a reduction in the magnitude of anisotropy at the wrist, with no evidence of a corresponding localised increase in precision. These findings demonstrate that we reference touch to a representation of the body that is categorically segmented into discrete parts, which consequently influences the perception of tactile distance.     

Cross-modal attention modulates tactile subitizing but not tactile numerosity estimation

Debate remains about whether the same attentional mechanism subserves subitizing (with number of items less than or equal to 4) and numerosity estimation (with number of items equal to or larger than 5), and evidence is scarce from the tactile modality. Here, we examined tactile numerosity perception. Using tactile Braille displays, participants completed the following three main tasks: (1) Unisensory task with focused attention: Participants reported the number (1~12) of the tactile pins. (2) Unisensory task with divided attention: Participants compared the numbers of pins across the upper and lower area of their left index fingers, in addition to reporting the number of tactile pins on their right index fingers. (3) Cross-modal task with divided attention: Participants reported the number of tactile pins and compared the numbers of visual dots across the upper and lower part of a (illusory) rectangle that overlaid the tactile stimuli. We found that performance of subitizing rather than estimation was interfered with in dual tasks, regardless of whether distractor events were from the same modality (tactile modality) or from a different modality (visual modality). Moreover, a further test of visual/tactile working memory capacity revealed that the precision of tactile subitizing, in the presence of a visual distractor, was correlated with the capacity of visual working memory, not of tactile working memory. Overall, our study revealed that tactile numerosity perception is accounted for by amodal attentional modulation yet by differential attentional mechanisms in terms of subitizing and estimation.     

Part‐based representations of the body in early childhood: evidence from perceived distortions of tactile space across limb boundaries

Studies show that touch in adults is referenced to a representation of the body that is structured topologically according to body parts; the perceived distance between two stimuli crossing over a body part boundary is elongated relative to the perceived distance between two stimuli presented within one body part category. Here we investigate this influence of body parts on tactile space perception in children of 5, 6 and 7 years of age. We presented children with pairs of tactile stimuli on the left hand/arm, either within the hand, within the forearm, or over the wrist. With their eyes closed children were asked to adjust the distance between the thumb and forefinger of their right hand to represent the felt distance between the two tactile stimuli. Like adults, the children perceived the distance between two stimuli that cross the body part boundary to be further apart than those that were presented within the hand or arm. They also perceive tactile distance to be greater on the hand than the arm which is the first observation of Weber's illusion in young children. We propose that a topological mode of body representation is particularly advantageous during early life given that body part categories remain constant while the metric proportions of the body change substantially as the child grows.     

The influence of temporal and spatial variation on tactile identification of letters

This study was designed to show that variation in stimulation has an influence on tactile perception similar to that in the visual modality. Thirty-two subjects were required to identify Hebrew letters by the tactile sense. Identification time was found to be significantly (p less than .01) shorter when subjects could feel the letters both with temporal variation (i.e., vibrations) and spatial variation (i.e., allowing the subjects to move their fingers over the letters) than when the letters were stable. The longest identification time was found when both temporal and spatial variation were absent. The effects of the two types of tactile variation were found to be compensatory, and a possible explanation for that is offered. Possible implications of these results regarding the use of tactile perception in man-machine systems are discussed.     

Somatosensory prior entry assessed with temporal order judgments and simultaneity judgments

Attention is central to perception, yet a clear understanding of how attention influences the latency of perception has proven surprisingly elusive. Recent research has indicated that spatially attended stimuli are perceived earlier than unattended stimuli across a range of sensory modalities-an effect termed prior entry. However, the method commonly used to measure this, the temporal order judgment (TOJ) task, has been criticized as susceptible to response bias, despite deliberate attempts to minimize such bias. A preferred alternative is the simultaneity judgment (SJ) task. We tested the prior-entry hypothesis for somatosensory stimuli using both a TOJ task (replicating an earlier experiment) and an SJ task. Prior-entry effects were found for both, though the effect was reduced in the SJ task. Additional experiments (TOJ and SJ) using visual cues established that the earlier perception of cued tactile targets does not result from intramodal sensory interactions between tactile cues and targets.