Feeling but not seeing the hand: Occluded hand position reduces the hand proximity effect in ERPs

Similarities of SNARC, cognitive Simon, and visuomotor Simon effects in terms of response time distributions, hand-stimulus proximity, and temporal dynamics

The spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) and Simon effects are attributed to the same type of conflict according to dimensional overlap (DO) theory: the congruency of task-irrelevant spatial information and the selected response (e.g., left or right). However, previous studies have yielded inconsistent results regarding the relationship between the two effects, with some studies reporting an interaction while others did not. This discrepancy may be attributed to the use of different types of Simon effects (visuomotor and cognitive Simon effects) in these studies, as the spatial codes associated with these two types of Simon effects are distinct (exogenous and endogenous, respectively). The aim of this study was to address these inconsistencies and gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences in spatial representations generated by spatial location, semantic information, and numerical information. We attempted to classify the relationships among the SNARC and Simon effects. Specifically, the visuomotor Simon, cognitive Simon, and SNARC effects were compared from three perspectives: the response time (RT) distribution, hand-stimulus proximity, and temporal dynamics (with the drift diffusion model; DDM). Regarding RTs, the results showed that the visuomotor Simon effect decreased with increased values of RT bins, while the cognitive Simon and SNARC effects increased. Additionally, the visuomotor Simon effect was the only effect influenced by hand-stimulus proximity, with a stronger effect observed in the hand-proximal condition than in the hand-distal condition. Regarding the DDM results, only the visuomotor Simon effect exhibited a higher drift rate and longer non-decision time in the incompatible condition than in the compatible condition. Conversely, both the SNARC and cognitive Simon effects exhibited an inverse pattern regarding the drift rate and no significant difference in non-decision time between the two conditions. These findings suggest that the SNARC effect is more similar to the cognitive Simon effect than the visuomotor Simon effect, indicating that the endogenous spatial-numerical representation of the SNARC effect might share an underlying processing mechanism with the endogenous spatial-semantic representation of the cognitive Simon effect but not with the exogenous location representation of the visuomotor Simon effect. Our results further demonstrate that the origin of spatial information could impact the classification of conflicts and supplement DO theory.

Does hand position affect orienting when no action is required? An electrophysiological study

Previous research has shown that attention can be biased to targets appearing near the hand that require action responses, arguing that attention to the hand facilitates upcoming action. It is unclear whether attention orients to non-targets near the hand not requiring responses. Using electroencephalography/event-related potentials (EEG/ERP), this study investigated whether hand position affected visual orienting to non-targets under conditions that manipulated the distribution of attention. We modified an attention paradigm in which stimuli were presented briefly and rapidly on either side of fixation; participants responded to infrequent targets (15%) but not standard non-targets and either a hand or a block was placed next to one stimulus location. In Experiment 1, attention was distributed across left and right stimulus locations to determine whether P1 or N1 ERP amplitudes to non-target standards were differentially influenced by hand location. In Experiment 2, attention was narrowed to only one stimulus location to determine whether attentional focus affected orienting to non-target locations near the hand. When attention was distributed across both stimulus locations, the hand increased overall N1 amplitudes relative to the block but not selectively to stimuli appearing near the hand. However, when attention was focused on one location, amplitudes were affected by the location of attentional focus and the stimulus, but not by hand or block location. Thus, hand position appears to contribute only a non-location-specific input to standards during visual orienting, but only in cases when attention is distributed across stimulus locations.

Visual attention around a hand location localized by proprioceptive information

Facilitation of visual processing has been reported in the space near the hand. To understand the underlying mechanism of hand proximity attention, we conducted experiments that isolated hand-related effects from top–down attention, proprioceptive information from visual information, the position effect from the influence of action, and the distance effect from the peripersonal effect. The flash-lag effect was used as an index of attentional modulation. Because the results showed that the flash-lag effect was smaller at locations near the hand, we concluded that there was a facilitation effect of the visual stimuli around the hand location identified through proprioceptive information. This was confirmed by conventional reaction time measures. We also measured steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) in order to investigate the spatial properties of hand proximity attention and top–down attention. The results showed that SSVEP reflects the effect of top–down attention but not that of hand proximity attention. This suggests that the site of hand proximity attention is at a later stage of visual processing, assuming that SSVEP responds to neural activities at the early stages. The results of left-handers differed from those of right-handers, and this is discussed in relation to handedness variation.

Modulation of exteroceptive electromyographic responses in defensive peripersonal space

The cutaneous silent period (CSP) to noxious finger stimulation constitutes a robust spinal inhibitory reflex that protects the hand from injury. In certain conditions, spinal inhibition is interrupted by a brief burst-like electromyographic activity, dividing the CSP into two inhibitory phases (I1 and I2). This excitatory component is termed long-loop reflex (LLR) and is presumed to be transcortical in origin. Efficient defense from environmental threats requires sensorimotor integration between multimodal sensory afferents and planning of defensive movements. In the defensive peripersonal space (DPPS) immediately surrounding the body, we interact with objects and persons with increased alertness. We investigated whether CSP differs when the stimulated hand is in the DPPS of the face compared with a distant position. Furthermore, we investigated the possible role of vision in CSP modulation. Fifteen healthy volunteers underwent CSP testing with the handheld either within 5 cm from the nose (near) or away from the body (far). Recordings were obtained from first dorsal interosseous muscle following index (D2) or little finger (D5) stimulation with varying intensities. A subgroup of subjects underwent CSP recordings in near and far conditions, both with eyes open and with eyes closed. No inhibitory CSP parameter differed between stimulation in near and far conditions. LLRs occurring following D2 stimulation were significantly larger in near than far conditions at all stimulus intensities, irrespective of subjects seeing their hand. Similar to the hand-blink reflex, spinally organized protective reflexes may be modulated by corticospinal facilitatory input when the hand enters the DPPS of the face. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The present findings demonstrate for the first time that a spinally organized protective reflex, the cutaneous silent period (CSP), may be modulated by top-down corticospinal facilitatory input when the stimulated hand enters the defensive peripersonal space (DPPS) of the face. In particular, the cortically mediated excitatory long-loop reflex, which may interrupt the CSP, is facilitated when the stimulated hand is in the DPPS, irrespective of visual control over the hand. No spinal inhibitory CSP parameter differs significantly in or outside the DPPS.

Hand function, not proximity, biases visuotactile integration later in object processing: An ERP study

Behavioral studies document a functional hand proximity effect: objects near the palm, but not the back of the hand, affect visual processing. Although visuotactile bimodal neurons integrate visual and haptic inputs, their receptive fields in monkey cortex encompass the whole hand, not just the palm. Using ERPs, we investigated whether hand function influenced the topology of integrated space around the hand. In a visual detection paradigm, target and non-target stimuli appeared equidistantly in front or in back of the hand. Equivalent N1 amplitudes were found for both conditions. P3 target versus non-target amplitude differences were greater for palm conditions. Hand proximity biased processing of visual targets equidistant from the hand early in processing. However, hand function biases emerged later when targets were selected for potential action. Thus, early hand proximity effects on object processing depend on sensory-reliant neural responses, whereas later multisensory integration depend more on the hand's functional expertise.