Others' Actions Reduce Crossmodal Integration in Peripersonal Space

Neuroanatomical correlates of peripersonal space: bridging the gap between perception, action, emotion and social cognition

Peripersonal space (PPS) is a construct referring to the portion of space immediately surrounding our bodies, where most of the interactions between the subject and the environment, including other individuals, take place. Decades of animal and human neuroscience research have revealed that the brain holds a separate representation of this region of space: this distinct spatial representation has evolved to ensure proper relevance to stimuli that are close to the body and prompt an appropriate behavioral response. The neural underpinnings of such construct have been thoroughly investigated by different generations of studies involving anatomical and electrophysiological investigations in animal models, and, recently, neuroimaging experiments in human subjects. Here, we provide a comprehensive anatomical overview of the anatomical circuitry underlying PPS representation in the human brain. Gathering evidence from multiple areas of research, we identified cortical and subcortical regions that are involved in specific aspects of PPS encoding.We show how these regions are part of segregated, yet integrated functional networks within the brain, which are in turn involved in higher-order integration of information. This wide-scale circuitry accounts for the relevance of PPS encoding in multiple brain functions, including not only motor planning and visuospatial attention but also emotional and social cognitive aspects. A complete characterization of these circuits may clarify the derangements of PPS representation observed in different neurological and neuropsychiatric diseases.

Self as a prior: The malleability of Bayesian multisensory integration to social salience

Our everyday perceptual experiences are grounded in the integration of information within and across our senses. Due to this direct behavioural relevance, cross-modal integration retains a certain degree of contextual flexibility, even to social relevance. However, how social relevance modulates cross-modal integration remains unclear. To investigate possible mechanisms, Experiment 1 tested the principles of audio-visual integration for numerosity estimation by deriving a Bayesian optimal observer model with perceptual prior from empirical data to explain perceptual biases. Such perceptual priors may shift towards locations of high salience in the stimulus space. Our results showed that the tendency to over- or underestimate numerosity, expressed in the frequency and strength of fission and fusion illusions, depended on the actual event numerosity. Experiment 2 replicated the effects of social relevance on multisensory integration from Scheller & Sui, 2022 JEP:HPP, using a lower number of events, thereby favouring the opposite illusion through enhanced influences of the prior. In line with the idea that the self acts like a prior, the more frequently observed illusion (more malleable to prior influences) was modulated by self-relevance. Our findings suggest that the self can influence perception by acting like a prior in cue integration, biasing perceptual estimates towards areas of high self-relevance.

Beyond peripersonal boundaries: insights from crossmodal interactions

We experience our self as a body located in space. However, how information about self-location is integrated into multisensory processes underlying the representation of the peripersonal space (PPS), is still unclear. Prior studies showed that the presence of visual information related to oneself modulates the multisensory processes underlying PPS. Here, we used the crossmodal congruency effect (CCE) to test whether this top-down modulation depends on the spatial location of the body-related visual information. Participants responded to tactile events on their bodies while trying to ignore a visual distractor presented on the mirror reflection of their body (Self) either in the peripersonal space (Near) or in the extrapersonal space (Far). We found larger CCE when visual events were presented on the mirror reflection in the peripersonal space, as compared to the extrapersonal space. These results suggest that top-down modulation of the multisensory bodily self is only possible within the PPS.

Space for power: feeling powerful over others' behavior affects peri-personal space representation

We investigated whether and how social power affects the representation of peri-personal space (PPS). We applied a multisensory interaction task to assess PPS representation and the Personal Sense of Power Scale to assess participants' feelings of power over others' behaviors and over others' opinions. In Study 1, we probed PPS representation in a virtual social context. Participants with a higher sense of power showed a less defined differentiation between the close and far space as compared to participants with a lower sense of power. This effect was replicated in Study 2 when participants performed the task in a non-social context (with no person in the scene), but only after they were reminded of an episode of power. Thus, social power-the perception of power over others' behavior-affects the multisensory representation of the self in space by blurring the differentiation between one's own PPS and the space of others.

Social Context and Tool Use Can Modulate Interpersonal Comfort Space

Recent research has investigated whether the representation of space around the body, in terms of reach-action (imagining of reaching another person) and comfort-social (tolerance of the other's proximity) spaces, may reflect a shared sensorimotor basis. Some studies exploiting motor plasticity induced by tool use have not observed sensorimotor identity (i.e., the same mechanisms that underlie, based on sensory information, the representation of proximal space in terms of action possibilities, goal-directed motor actions, and anticipation of the sensorimotor consequences), whereas evidence to the contrary has also emerged. Since the data are not fully convergent, here we wondered whether or not the combination of motor plasticity induced by tool use and the processing of the role of social context might reflect a similar modulation in both spaces. To this end, we conducted a randomized control trial with three groups of participants (N = 62) in which reaching and comfort distances were measured in Pre- and Post-tool-use sessions. The tool-use sessions were conducted under different conditions: (i) in the presence of a social stimulus (determining the social context) (Tool plus Mannequin group); (ii) without any stimulus (Only Tool group); (iii) in the presence of a box (Tool plus Object group) as a control condition. Results showed an extension of comfort distance in the Post-tool session of the Tool plus Mannequin group compared with the other conditions. Conversely, the reaching distance was larger after tool use than at the Pre-tool-use session, independently of the experimental conditions. Our findings suggest that motor plasticity impacts reaching and comfort spaces to different degrees; while reaching space is markedly sensitive to motor plasticity, comfort space needs qualification of social context information.

Spatial proximity to others induces plastic changes in the neural representation of the peripersonal space

Peripersonal space (PPS) is a highly plastic "invisible bubble" surrounding the body whose boundaries are mapped through multisensory integration. Yet, it is unclear how the spatial proximity to others alters PPS boundaries. Across five experiments (N = 80), by recording behavioral and electrophysiological responses to visuo-tactile stimuli, we demonstrate that the proximity to others induces plastic changes in the neural PPS representation. The spatial proximity to someone else's hand shrinks the portion of space within which multisensory responses occur, thus reducing the PPS boundaries. This suggests that PPS representation, built from bodily and multisensory signals, plastically adapts to the presence of conspecifics to define the self-other boundaries, so that what is usually coded as "my space" is recoded as "your space". When the space is shared with conspecifics, it seems adaptive to move the other-space away from the self-space to discriminate whether external events pertain to the self-body or to other-bodies.

Peripersonal Space from a multisensory perspective: the distinct effect of the visual and tactile components of Visuo-Tactile stimuli

Peripersonal Space (PPS) is defined as the space close to the body where all interactions between the individual and the environment take place. Behavioural experiments on PPS exploit multisensory integration, using Multisensory Visuo-Tactile stimuli (MVT), whose visual and tactile components target the same body part (i.e. the face, the hand, the foot). However, the effects of visual and tactile stimuli targeting different body parts on PPS representation are unknown, and the relationship with the RTs for Tactile-Only stimuli is unclear. In this study, we addressed two research questions: (1) if the MVT-RTs are independent of Tactile-Only-RTs and if the latter is influenced by time-dependency effects, and (2) if PPS estimations derived from MVT-RTs depend on the location of the Visual or Tactile component of MVTs. We studied 40 right-handed participants, manipulating the body location (right hand, cheek or foot) and the distance of administration. Visual and Tactile components targeted different or the same body parts and were delivered respectively at five distances. RTs to Tactile-Only trials showed a non-monotonic trend, depending on the delay of stimulus administration. Moreover, RTs to Multisensory Visuo-Tactile trials were found to be dependent on the Distance and location of the Visual component of the stimulus. In conclusion, our results show that Tactile-Only RTs should be removed from Visuo-Tactile RTs and that the Visual and Tactile components of Visuo-Tactile stimuli do not necessarily have to target the same body part. These results have a relevant impact on the study of PPS representations, providing new important methodological information.

Empathy as a predictor of peripersonal space: Evidence from the crossmodal congruency task

To investigate whether individual differences in Empathy predict the characteristics of Peripersonal Space (PPS) representations, we asked participants to complete the IRI questionnaire and a visuo-tactile crossmodal congruency task (CCT) as an index of PPS. In the CCT, they responded to the elevation of a tactile target while ignoring a visual distractor presented at the same (i.e. congruent) or different (i.e. incongruent) elevation. The target-distractor distance was also manipulated in depth, with visual distractors randomly presented at near, middle or far locations (0 cm, 25 cm or 50 cm). The near and middle crossmodal congruency effects (CCE) were inversely related to participants' scores on the Empathic Concern sub-scale (EC). Furthermore, the slope of participants' CCE across locations was related to EC scores, with flatter slopes for higher EC individuals. Thus, higher EC individuals showed reduced visuo-tactile integration responses within PPS and a reduced differentiation between PPS and extra-personal space (EPS).

The macaque ventral intraparietal area has expanded into three homologue human parietal areas

The macaque ventral intraparietal area (VIP) in the fundus of the intraparietal sulcus has been implicated in a diverse range of sensorimotor and cognitive functions such as motion processing, multisensory integration, processing of head peripersonal space, defensive behavior, and numerosity coding. Here, we exhaustively review macaque VIP function, cytoarchitectonics, and anatomical connectivity and integrate it with human studies that have attempted to identify a potential human VIP homologue. We show that human VIP research has consistently identified three, rather than one, bilateral parietal areas that each appear to subsume some, but not all, of the macaque area's functionality. Available evidence suggests that this human "VIP complex" has evolved as an expansion of the macaque area, but that some precursory specialization within macaque VIP has been previously overlooked. The three human areas are dominated, roughly, by coding the head or self in the environment, visual heading direction, and the peripersonal environment around the head, respectively. A unifying functional principle may be best described as prediction in space and time, linking VIP to state estimation as a key parietal sensorimotor function. VIP's expansive differentiation of head and self-related processing may have been key in the emergence of human bodily self-consciousness.

The impact of joint attention on the sound-induced flash illusions

Humans coordinate their focus of attention with others, either by gaze following or prior agreement. Though the effects of joint attention on perceptual and cognitive processing tend to be examined in purely visual environments, they should also show in multisensory settings. According to a prevalent hypothesis, joint attention enhances visual information encoding and processing, over and above individual attention. If two individuals jointly attend to the visual components of an audiovisual event, this should affect the weighing of visual information during multisensory integration. We tested this prediction in this preregistered study, using the well-documented sound-induced flash illusions, where the integration of an incongruent number of visual flashes and auditory beeps results in a single flash being seen as two (fission illusion) and two flashes as one (fusion illusion). Participants were asked to count flashes either alone or together, and expected to be less prone to both fission and fusion illusions when they jointly attended to the visual targets. However, illusions were as frequent when people attended to the flashes alone or with someone else, even though they responded faster during joint attention. Our results reveal the limitations of the theory that joint attention enhances visual processing as it does not affect temporal audiovisual integration.

Parietal maps of visual signals for bodily action planning

The posterior parietal cortex (PPC) has long been understood as a high-level integrative station for computing motor commands for the body based on sensory (i.e., mostly tactile and visual) input from the outside world. In the last decade, accumulating evidence has shown that the parietal areas not only extract the pragmatic features of manipulable objects, but also subserve sensorimotor processing of others’ actions. A paradigmatic case is that of the anterior intraparietal area (AIP), which encodes the identity of observed manipulative actions that afford potential motor actions the observer could perform in response to them. On these bases, we propose an AIP manipulative action-based template of the general planning functions of the PPC and review existing evidence supporting the extension of this model to other PPC regions and to a wider set of actions: defensive and locomotor actions. In our model, a hallmark of PPC functioning is the processing of information about the physical and social world to encode potential bodily actions appropriate for the current context. We further extend the model to actions performed with man-made objects (e.g., tools) and artifacts, because they become integral parts of the subject’s body schema and motor repertoire. Finally, we conclude that existing evidence supports a generally conserved neural circuitry that transforms integrated sensory signals into the variety of bodily actions that primates are capable of preparing and performing to interact with their physical and social world.

Whatever Next and Close to My Self-The Transparent Senses and the "Second Skin": Implications for the Case of Depersonalization

In his paper “Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science,” Andy Clark seminally proposed that the brain's job is to predict whatever information is coming “next” on the basis of prior inputs and experiences. Perception fundamentally subserves survival and self-preservation in biological agents, such as humans. Survival however crucially depends on rapid and accurate information processing of what is happening in the here and now. Hence, the term “next” in Clark's seminal formulation must include not only the temporal dimension (i.e., what is perceived now) but also the spatial dimension (i.e., what is perceived here or next-to-my-body). In this paper, we propose to focus on perceptual experiences that happen “next,” i.e., close-to-my-body. This is because perceptual processing of proximal sensory inputs has a key impact on the organism's survival. Specifically, we focus on tactile experiences mediated by the skin and what we will call the “extended skin” or “second skin,” that is, immediate objects/materials that envelop closely to our skin, namely, clothes. We propose that the skin and tactile experiences are not a mere border separating the self and world. Rather, they simultaneously and inherently distinguish and connect the bodily self to its environment. Hence, these proximal and pervasive tactile experiences can be viewed as a “transparent bridge” intrinsically relating and facilitating exchanges between the self and the physical and social world. We conclude with potential implications of this observation for the case of Depersonalization Disorder, a condition that makes people feel estranged and detached from their self, body, and the world.

The Peripersonal Space in a social world

The PeriPersonal Space (PPS) has been defined as the space surrounding the body, where physical interactions with elements of the environment take place. As our world is social in nature, recent evidence revealed the complex modulation of social factors onto PPS representation. In light of the growing interest in the field, in this review we take a close look at the experimental approaches undertaken to assess the impact of social factors onto PPS representation. Our social world also influences the personal space (PS), a concept stemming from social psychology, defined as the space we keep between us and others to avoid discomfort. Here we analytically compare PPS and PS with the aim of understanding if and how they relate to each other. At the behavioral level, the multiplicity of experimental methodologies, whether well-established or novel, lead to somewhat divergent results and interpretations. Beyond behavior, we review physiological and neural signatures of PPS representation to discuss how interoceptive signals could contribute to PPS representation, as well as how these internal signals could shape the neural responses of PPS representation. In particular, by merging exteroceptive information from the environment and internal signals that come from the body, PPS may promote an integrated representation of the self, as distinct from the environment and the others. We put forward that integrating internal and external signals in the brain for perception of proximal environmental stimuli may also provide us with a better understanding of the processes at play during social interactions. Adopting such an integrative stance may offer novel insights about PPS representation in a social world. Finally, we discuss possible links between PPS research and social cognition, a link that may contribute to the understanding of intentions and feelings of others around us and promote appropriate social interactions.

Multisensory Integration Is Modulated by Hypnotizability

This study investigated multisensory integration in 29 medium-to-high (mid-highs) and 24 low-to-medium (mid-lows) hypnotizable individuals, classified according to the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form A. Participants completed a simultaneity judgment (SJ) task, where an auditory and a visual stimulus were presented in close proximity to their body in a range of 11 stimulus onset asynchronies. Results show that mid-highs were prone to judge audiovisual stimuli as simultaneous over a wider range of time intervals between sensory stimuli, as expressed by a broader temporal binding window, when the visual stimulus precedes the auditory one. No significant difference was observed for response times. Findings indicate a role of hypnotizability in multisensory integration likely due to the highs' cerebellar peculiarities and/or sensory modality preference.

Interpersonal Motor Interactions Shape Multisensory Representations of the Peripersonal Space

This perspective review focuses on the proposal that predictive multisensory integration occurring in one's peripersonal space (PPS) supports individuals' ability to efficiently interact with others, and that integrating sensorimotor signals from the interacting partners leads to the emergence of a shared representation of the PPS. To support this proposal, we first introduce the features of body and PPS representations that are relevant for interpersonal motor interactions. Then, we highlight the role of action planning and execution on the dynamic expansion of the PPS. We continue by presenting evidence of PPS modulations after tool use and review studies suggesting that PPS expansions may be accounted for by Bayesian sensory filtering through predictive coding. In the central section, we describe how this conceptual framework can be used to explain the mechanisms through which the PPS may be modulated by the actions of our interaction partner, in order to facilitate interpersonal coordination. Last, we discuss how this proposal may support recent evidence concerning PPS rigidity in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and its possible relationship with ASD individuals' difficulties during interpersonal coordination. Future studies will need to clarify the mechanisms and neural underpinning of these dynamic, interpersonal modulations of the PPS.

Close facial emotions enhance physiological responses and facilitate perceptual discrimination

Accumulating evidence indicates that the peripersonal space (PPS) constitutes a privileged area for efficient processing of proximal stimuli, allowing to flexibly adapt our behavior both to the physical and social environment. Whether and how behavioral and physiological signatures of PPS relate to each other in emotional contexts remains, though, elusive. Here, we addressed this question by having participants to discriminate male from female faces depicting different emotions (happiness, anger or neutral) and presented at different distances (50 cm-300 cm) while we measured the reaction time and accuracy of their responses, as well as pupillary diameter, heart rate and heart rate variability. Results showed facilitation of participants' performances (i.e., faster response time) when faces were presented close compared to far from the participants, even when controlling for retinal size across distances. These behavioral effects were accompanied by significant modulation of participants' physiological indexes when faces were presented in PPS. Interestingly, both PPS representation and physiological signals were affected by features of the seen faces such as the emotional valence, its sex and the participants' sex, revealing the profound impact of social context onto the autonomic state and behavior within PPS. Together, these findings suggest that both external and internal signals contribute in shaping PPS representation.

Coordinating attention requires coordinated senses

From playing basketball to ordering at a food counter, we frequently and effortlessly coordinate our attention with others towards a common focus: we look at the ball, or point at a piece of cake. This non-verbal coordination of attention plays a fundamental role in our social lives: it ensures that we refer to the same object, develop a shared language, understand each other's mental states, and coordinate our actions. Models of joint attention generally attribute this accomplishment to gaze coordination. But are visual attentional mechanisms sufficient to achieve joint attention, in all cases? Besides cases where visual information is missing, we show how combining it with other senses can be helpful, and even necessary to certain uses of joint attention. We explain the two ways in which non-visual cues contribute to joint attention: either as enhancers, when they complement gaze and pointing gestures in order to coordinate joint attention on visible objects, or as modality pointers, when joint attention needs to be shifted away from the whole object to one of its properties, say weight or texture. This multisensory approach to joint attention has important implications for social robotics, clinical diagnostics, pedagogy and theoretical debates on the construction of a shared world.

Performing a task jointly enhances the sound-induced flash illusion

Our senses are stimulated continuously. Through multisensory integration, different sensory inputs may or may not be combined into a unitary percept. Simultaneous with this stimulation, people are frequently engaged in social interactions, but how multisensory integration and social processing interact is largely unknown. The present study investigated if, and how, the multisensory sound-induced flash illusion is affected by a social manipulation. In the sound-induced flash illusion, a participant typically receives one visual flash and two auditory beeps and she or he is required to indicate the number of flashes that were perceived. Often, the auditory beeps alter the perception of the flashes such that a participant tends to perceive two flashes instead of one flash. We tested whether performing a flash counting task with a partner (confederate), who was required to indicate the number of presented beeps, would modulate this illusion. We found that the sound-induced flash illusion was perceived significantly more often when the flash counting task was performed with the confederate compared with performing it alone. Yet, we no longer find this effect if visual access between the two individuals is prevented. These findings, combined with previous results, suggest that performing a multisensory task jointly-in this case an audiovisual task-lowers the extent to which an individual attends to visual information, which in turn affects the multisensory integration process.

An Investigation Into Interpersonal and Peripersonal Spaces of Chinese People for Different Directions and Genders

This study explores the interpersonal space (IPS) and peripersonal space (PPS) of Chinese people and evaluates the relationship between the two spaces for different directions and genders. Seventy-one participants were recruited for this study. Participants were required to determine their IPS in eight directions (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°) when approached by male or female confederates in the comfort distance task. Each participant was also asked to judge their PPS in five directions (0°, 45°, 90°, 270°, 315°) following the same procedure. Results showed that their IPS was significantly influenced by direction (p < 0.05), with the largest distance in the front (0°) and the closest distance in the rear (135°, 180°, 225°), indicating non-circular IPS among Chinese subjects. Moreover, the PPS on the right side (90°) was larger than in other directions (0°, 45°, 270°, 315°). Participants maintained larger IPS than PPS in the front, but the IPS was closer than PPS on the right and left sides. When facing a female confederate, larger IPS was preferred than PPS, whereas the opposite held true when facing a male confederate. Comparison of participants’ arm length and PPS showed that the reachability distance was overestimated in the front but underestimated laterally. The findings of this study can be applied to environmental design, space utilization, and social interaction.

Similar social presence effects when reaching for real and digital objects

Though digital images and real objects are represented differently at a neural level and can evoke different behaviours, little work has directly compared the magnitude of social effects on real and digitally represented stimuli. Object-directed reaches are modified in the near space of others, while image-directed reaches are not, but the exact role of the presence versus location of the other person is unknown (Dosso and Kingstone, 2018). The present work probed the unique contribution of social presence (a passive observer) in shaping object- and image-directed reaching behaviour. In a shape-matching game, movements were performed more slowly and less efficiently when participants were observed by the experimenter, regardless of whether participants handled real objects or digital images. Our finding that social presence affects real- and image-directed reaches similarly supports the continued use of computer-generated objects to approximate human behaviour towards real objects when social effects on object-directed actions are studied.

Audiovisual Integration During Joint Action: No Effects for Motion Discrimination and Temporal Order Judgment Tasks

In daily life, humans constantly process information from multiple sensory modalities (e.g., visual and auditory). Information across sensory modalities may (or may not) be combined to form the perception of a single event via the process of multisensory integration. Recent research has suggested that performing a spatial crossmodal congruency task jointly with a partner affects multisensory integration. To date, it has not been investigated whether multisensory integration in other crossmodal tasks is also affected by performing a task jointly. To address this point, we investigated whether joint task performance also affects perceptual judgments in a crossmodal motion discrimination task and a temporal order judgment task. In both tasks, pairs of participants were presented with auditory and visual stimuli that might or might not be perceived as belonging to a single event. Each participant in a pair was required to respond to stimuli from one sensory modality only (e.g., visual stimuli only). Participants performed both individual and joint conditions. Replicating earlier multisensory integration effects, we found that participants' perceptual judgments were significantly affected by stimuli in the other modality for both tasks. However, we did not find that performing a task jointly modulated these crossmodal effects. Taking this together with earlier findings, we suggest that joint task performance affects crossmodal results in a manner dependent on how these effects are quantified (i.e., via responses time or accuracy) and the specific task demands (i.e., whether tasks require processing stimuli in terms of location, motion, or timing).

Social coding of the multisensory space around us

Multisensory integration of stimuli occurring in the area surrounding our bodies gives rise to the functional representation of peripersonal space (PPS). PPS extent is flexible according to the affective context and the target of an action, but little is known about how social context modulates it. We used an audiotactile interaction task to investigate PPS of individuals during social interaction. Participants had to detect as fast as possible a tactile stimulus while task-irrelevant looming sounds were presented, while they were paired as collaborative dyads and as competitive dyads. We also measured PPS in participants seated near an inactive individual. PPS boundaries were modulated only when participants collaborated with a partner, in the form of an extension on the right hemispace and independently of the location of the partner. This suggests that space processing is modified during collaborative tasks. During collective actions, a supra-individual representation of the space of action could be at stake in order to adapt our individual motor control to an interaction as a group with the external world. Reassessing multisensory integration in the light of its potential social sensitivity might reveal that low-level mechanisms are modified by the need to interact with others.

Enhanced audio-tactile multisensory interaction in a peripersonal task after echolocation

Peripersonal space (PPS) is created by a multisensory interaction between different sensory modalities and can be modified by experience. In this article, we investigated whether an auditory training, inside the peripersonal space area, can modify the PPS around the head in sighted participants. The auditory training was based on echolocation. We measured the participant's reaction times to a tactile stimulation on the neck, while task-irrelevant looming auditory stimuli were presented. Sounds more strongly affect tactile processing when located within a limited distance from the body. We measured spatially dependent audio-tactile interaction as a proxy of PPS representation before and after an echolocation training. We found a significant speeding effect on tactile RTs after echolocation, specifically when sounds where around the location where the echolocation task was performed. This effect could not be attributed to a task repetition effect nor to a shift of spatial attention, as no changes of PPS were found in two control groups of participants, who performed the PPS task after either a break or a temporal auditory task (with stimuli located at the same position of echolocation task). These findings show that echolocation affects multisensory processing inside PPS representation, likely to better represent the space where external stimuli, have to be localized.

An Action Field Theory of Peripersonal Space

Predominant conceptual frameworks often describe peripersonal space (PPS) as a single, distance-based, in-or-out zone within which stimuli elicit enhanced neural and behavioural responses. Here we argue that this intuitive framework is contradicted by neurophysiological and behavioural data. First, PPS-related measures are not binary, but graded with proximity. Second, they are strongly influenced by factors other than proximity, such as walking, tool use, stimulus valence, and social cues. Third, many different PPS-related responses exist, and each can be used to describe a different space. Here, we reconceptualise PPS as a set of graded fields describing behavioural relevance of actions aiming to create or avoid contact between objects and the body. This reconceptualisation incorporates PPS into mainstream theories of action selection and behaviour.

The Multimodal Go-Nogo Simon Effect: Signifying the Relevance of Stimulus Features in the Go-Nogo Simon Paradigm Impacts Event Representations and Task Performance

Numerous studies have shown that stimulus-response-compatibility (SRC) effects in the go-nogo version of the Simon task can be elicited as a result of performing the task together with another human or non-human agent (e.g., a Japanese-waving-cat, a working-clock, or a ticking-metronome). A parsimonious explanation for both social and non-social SRC effects is that highlighting the spatial significance of alternative (non-/social) action events makes action selection more difficult. This holds even when action events are task-irrelevant. Recent findings, however, suggest that this explanation holds only for cases of a modality correspondence between the Simon task as such (i.e., auditory or visual) and the alternative (non-/social) action event that needs to be discriminated. However, based on the fact that perception and action are represented by the same kind of codes, an event that makes the go-nogo decision more challenging should impact go-nogo Simon task performance. To tackle this issue, the present study tested if alternative stimulus events that come from a different sensory modality do impact SRC effects in the go-nogo version of the Simon task. This was tested in the presence and absence of alternative action events of a human co-actor. In a multimodal (auditory–visual) go-nogo Simon paradigm, participants responded to their assigned stimulus – e.g., a single auditory stimulus while ignoring the alternative visual stimulus or vice versa – in the presence or absence of a human co-actor (i.e., joint and single go-nogo condition). Results showed reliable SRCs in both, single and joint go-nogo Simon task conditions independent of the modality participants had to respond to. Although a correspondence between stimulus material and attention-grabbing event might be an efficient condition for SRCs to emerge, the driving force underlying the emergence of SRCs rather appears to be whether the attentional focus prevents or facilitates alternative events to be integrated. Thus, under task conditions in which the attentional focus is sufficiently broad to enable the integration and thus cognitive representation of alternative events, go-nogo decisions become more difficult, resulting in reliable SRCs in single and joint go-nogo Simon tasks.

Sleep loss causes social withdrawal and loneliness

Loneliness and social isolation markedly increase mortality risk, and are linked to numerous mental and physical comorbidities, including sleep disruption. But does sleep loss causally trigger loneliness? Here, we demonstrate that a lack of sleep leads to a neural and behavioral phenotype of social withdrawal and loneliness; one that can be perceived by other members of society, and reciprocally, makes those societal members lonelier in return. We propose a model in which sleep loss instigates a propagating, self-reinforcing cycle of social separation and withdrawal.

Loneliness markedly increases mortality and morbidity, yet the factors triggering loneliness remain largely unknown. This study shows that sleep loss leads to a neurobehavioral phenotype of human social separation and loneliness, one that is transmittable to non-sleep-deprived individuals.

When task sharing reduces interference: evidence for division-of-labour in Stroop-like tasks

Performing a task with another person may either enhance or reduce the interference produced by task-irrelevant information. In three experiments, we employed the joint version of a Stroop-like task (i.e., the picture-word interference-PWI-task) to investigate some of the task features that seem to be critical in determining the effect of task-irrelevant information when the task is shared between two individuals. Participants were asked to perform a PWI task, which required to name a picture while ignoring a distractor word, first individually (in a baseline block of trials) and then co-acting with an alleged partner. Results showed that, compared to the baseline and to a condition in which participants continued to perform the PWI task individually, the belief of co-acting with another individual who was thought to be in charge of the distractor words suppressed the semantic interference effect when these words were in case alternation letters (e.g., "mOuSe"). Conversely, the semantic interference effect persisted when the co-actor was thought to be in charge of the same task as the participant, that is, the co-actor was thought to respond to the pictures. These results are accounted for by assuming that, when the participant knows that another person is in charge of the task-irrelevant information, a division-of-labour between participant and co-actor can be established. Such a division-of-labour may provide the participant with a strategy to oppose the semantic interference effect. Our findings, therefore, suggest that sharing a task with another person in charge of potentially interfering information can enable people to filter out this information from their own task representation.

Can Limitations of Visuospatial Attention Be Circumvented? A Review

In daily life, humans are bombarded with visual input. Yet, their attentional capacities for processing this input are severely limited. Several studies have investigated factors that influence these attentional limitations and have identified methods to circumvent them. Here, we provide a review of these findings. We first review studies that have demonstrated limitations of visuospatial attention and investigated physiological correlates of these limitations. We then review studies in multisensory research that have explored whether limitations in visuospatial attention can be circumvented by distributing information processing across several sensory modalities. Finally, we discuss research from the field of joint action that has investigated how limitations of visuospatial attention can be circumvented by distributing task demands across people and providing them with multisensory input. We conclude that limitations of visuospatial attention can be circumvented by distributing attentional processing across sensory modalities when tasks involve spatial as well as object-based attentional processing. However, if only spatial attentional processing is required, limitations of visuospatial attention cannot be circumvented by distributing attentional processing. These findings from multisensory research are applicable to visuospatial tasks that are performed jointly by two individuals. That is, in a joint visuospatial task requiring object-based as well as spatial attentional processing, joint performance is facilitated when task demands are distributed across sensory modalities. Future research could further investigate how applying findings from multisensory research to joint action research may facilitate joint performance. Generally, findings are applicable to real-world scenarios such as aviation or car-driving to circumvent limitations of visuospatial attention.

Anchoring the Self to the Body in Bilateral Vestibular Failure

Recent findings suggest that vestibular information plays a significant role in anchoring the self to the body. Out-of-body experiences of neurological origin are frequently associated with vestibular sensations, and galvanic vestibular stimulation in healthy participants anchors the self to the body. Here, we provide the first objective measures of anchoring the self to the body in chronic bilateral vestibular failure (BVF). We compared 23 patients with idiopathic BVF to 23 healthy participants in a series of experiments addressing several aspects of visuo-spatial perspective taking and embodiment. In Experiment 1, participants were involved in a virtual "dot-counting task" from their own perspective or the perspective of a distant avatar, to measure implicit and explicit perspective taking, respectively. In both groups, response times increased similarly when the avatar's and participant's viewpoint differed, for both implicit and explicit perspective taking. In Experiment 2, participants named ambiguous letters (such as "b" or "q") traced on their forehead that could be perceived from an internal or external perspective. The frequency of perceiving ambiguous letters from an internal perspective was similar in both groups. In Experiment 3, participants completed a questionnaire measuring the experienced self/body and self/environment "closeness". Both groups reported a similar embodied experience. Altogether, our data show that idiopathic BVF does not change implicit and explicit perspective taking nor subjective anchoring of the self to the body. Our negative findings offer insight into the multisensory mechanisms of embodiment. Only acute peripheral vestibular disorders and neurological disorders in vestibular brain areas (characterized by strong multisensory conflicts) may evoke disembodied experiences.

The contribution of response conflict, multisensory integration, and body-mediated attention to the crossmodal congruency effect

The crossmodal congruency task is a consolidated paradigm for investigating interactions between vision and touch. In this task, participants judge the elevation of a tactile target stimulus while ignoring a visual distracter stimulus that may occur at a congruent or incongruent elevation, thus engendering a measure of visuo-tactile interference (crossmodal congruency effect, CCE). The CCE reflects perceptual, attentional, and response-related factors, but their respective roles and interactions have not been set out yet. In two experiments, we used the original version of the crossmodal congruency task as well as ad hoc manipulations of the experimental setting and of the participants' posture for characterizing the contributions of multisensory integration, body-mediated attention, and response conflict to the CCE. Results of the two experiments consistently showed that the largest amount of variance in the CCE is explained by the reciprocal elevation of visual and tactile stimuli. This finding is compatible with a major role of response conflict for the CCE. Weaker yet distinguishable contributions come from multisensory integration, observed in the absence of response conflict, and from hand-mediated attentional binding, observed with the modified posture and in the presence of response conflict. Overall, this study informs the long-standing debate about mechanisms underlying the CCE by revealing that the visuo-tactile interference in this task is primarily due to the competition between opposite response tendencies, with an additional contribution of multisensory integration and hand-mediated attentional binding.

Disentangling Action from Social Space: Tool-Use Differently Shapes the Space around Us

Converging evidence suggests close relationships between the action and social space representations. The concepts of peripersonal space, as defined by cognitive neuroscience, and interpersonal space, as defined by social psychology, refer to approximately the same spatial area surrounding our bodies. The aim of this study was thus to assess experimentally whether the peripersonal (PPS) and interpersonal space (IPS) represent a similar psychological entity. Were this true, they should share some functional features. Here we tested tool-use dependent plasticity, known to modulate PPS, but still unexplored in the IPS. Results from two experiments converge in showing that tool-use remapped the action-related PPS, measured by a Reaching-distance toward a confederate, but did not affect the social-related IPS, measured by a Comfort-distance task. These findings indicate that PPS and IPS rely on dissociable plastic mechanisms and suggest that, at least in the present experimental conditions, there is no full functional overlap between these two spatial representations.

Complementary Hand Responses Occur in Both Peri- and Extrapersonal Space

Human beings have a strong tendency to imitate. Evidence from motor priming paradigms suggests that people automatically tend to imitate observed actions such as hand gestures by performing mirror-congruent movements (e.g., lifting one’s right finger upon observing a left finger movement; from a mirror perspective). Many observed actions however, do not require mirror-congruent responses but afford complementary (fitting) responses instead (e.g., handing over a cup; shaking hands). Crucially, whereas mirror-congruent responses don't require physical interaction with another person, complementary actions often do. Given that most experiments studying motor priming have used stimuli devoid of contextual information, this space or interaction-dependency of complementary responses has not yet been assessed. To address this issue, we let participants perform a task in which they had to mirror or complement a hand gesture (fist or open hand) performed by an actor depicted either within or outside of reach. In three studies, we observed faster reaction times and less response errors for complementary relative to mirrored hand movements in response to open hand gestures (i.e., ‘hand-shaking’) irrespective of the perceived interpersonal distance of the actor. This complementary effect could not be accounted for by a low-level spatial cueing effect. These results demonstrate that humans have a strong and automatic tendency to respond by performing complementary actions. In addition, our findings underline the limitations of manipulations of space in modulating effects of motor priming and the perception of affordances.

Depth: the Forgotten Dimension in Multisensory Research

The last quarter of a century has seen a dramatic rise of interest in the spatial constraints on multisensory integration. However, until recently, the majority of this research has investigated integration in the space directly in front of the observer. The space around us, however, extends in three spatial dimensions in the front and to the rear beyond such a limited area. The question to be addressed in this review concerns whether multisensory integration operates according to the same rules throughout the whole of three-dimensional space. The results reviewed here not only show that the space around us seems to be divided into distinct functional regions, but they also suggest that multisensory interactions are modulated by the region of space in which stimuli happen to be presented. We highlight a number of key limitations with previous research in this area, including: (1) The focus on only a very narrow region of two-dimensional space in front of the observer; (2) the use of static stimuli in most research; (3) the study of observers who themselves have been mostly static; and (4) the study of isolated observers. All of these factors may change the way in which the senses interact at any given distance, as can the emotional state/personality of the observer. In summarizing these salient issues, we hope to encourage researchers to consider these factors in their own research in order to gain a better understanding of the spatial constraints on multisensory integration as they affect us in our everyday life.

Reward-prospect interacts with trial-by-trial preparation for potential distraction

When attending for impending visual stimuli, cognitive systems prepare to identify relevant information while ignoring irrelevant, potentially distracting input. Recent work (Marini et al., 2013) showed that a supramodal distracter-filtering mechanism is invoked in blocked designs involving expectation of possible distracter stimuli, although this entails a cost (distraction-filtering cost) on speeded performance when distracters are expected but not presented. Here we used an arrow-flanker task to study whether an analogous cost, potentially reflecting the recruitment of a specific distraction-filtering mechanism, occurs dynamically when potential distraction is cued trial-to-trial (cued distracter-expectation cost). In order to promote the maximal utilization of cue information by participants, in some experimental conditions the cue also signaled the possibility of earning a monetary reward for fast and accurate performance. This design also allowed us to investigate the interplay between anticipation for distracters and anticipation of reward, which is known to engender attentional preparation. Only in reward contexts did participants show a cued distracter-expectation cost, which was larger with higher reward prospect and when anticipation for both distracters and reward were manipulated trial-to-trial. Thus, these results indicate that reward prospect interacts with the distracter expectation during trial-by-trial preparatory processes for potential distraction. These findings highlight how reward guides cue-driven attentional preparation.

Flexibly weighted integration of tactile reference frames

To estimate the location of a tactile stimulus, the brain seems to integrate different types of spatial information such as skin-based, anatomical coordinates and external, spatiotopic coordinates. The aim of the present study was to test whether the use of these coordinates is fixed, or whether they are weighted according to the task context. Participants made judgments about two tactile stimuli with different vibration characteristics, one applied to each hand. First, they always performed temporal order judgments (TOJ) of the tactile stimuli with respect to the stimulated hands that were either crossed or uncrossed. The resulting crossing effect, that is, impaired performance in crossed compared to uncrossed conditions, was used as a measure of reference frame weighting and was compared across conditions. Second, in dual judgment conditions participants subsequently made judgments about the stimulus vibration characteristics, either with respect to spatial location or with respect to temporal order. Responses in the spatial secondary task either accented anatomical (Experiment 1) or external (Experiment 2) coding. A TOJ crossing effect emerged in all conditions, and secondary tasks did not affect primary task performance in the uncrossed posture. Yet, the spatial secondary task resulted in improved crossed hands performance in the primary task, but only if the secondary judgment stressed the anatomical reference frame (Experiment 1), rather than the external reference frames (Experiment 2). Like the anatomically coded spatial secondary task, the temporal secondary task improved crossed hand performance of the primary task. The differential influence of the varying secondary tasks implies that integration weights assigned to the anatomical and external reference frames are not fixed. Rather, they are flexibly adjusted to the context, presumably through top-down modulation.

Crossmodal representation of a functional robotic hand arises after extensive training in healthy participants

The way in which humans represent their own bodies is critical in guiding their interactions with the environment. To achieve successful body-space interactions, the body representation is strictly connected with that of the space immediately surrounding it through efficient visuo-tactile crossmodal integration. Such a body-space integrated representation is not fixed, but can be dynamically modulated by the use of external tools. Our study aims to explore the effect of using a complex tool, namely a functional prosthesis, on crossmodal visuo-tactile spatial interactions in healthy participants. By using the crossmodal visuo-tactile congruency paradigm, we found that prolonged training with a mechanical hand capable of distal hand movements and providing sensory feedback induces a pattern of interference, which is not observed after a brief training, between visual stimuli close to the prosthesis and touches on the body. These results suggest that after extensive, but not short, training the functional prosthesis acquires a visuo-tactile crossmodal representation akin to real limbs. This finding adds to previous evidence for the embodiment of functional prostheses in amputees, and shows that their use may also improve the crossmodal combination of somatosensory feedback delivered by the prosthesis with visual stimuli in the space around it, thus effectively augmenting the patients' visuomotor abilities.

Shared action spaces: a basis function framework for social re-calibration of sensorimotor representations supporting joint action

The article explores the possibilities of formalizing and explaining the mechanisms that support spatial and social perspective alignment sustained over the duration of a social interaction. The basic proposed principle is that in social contexts the mechanisms for sensorimotor transformations and multisensory integration (learn to) incorporate information relative to the other actor(s), similar to the “re-calibration” of visual receptive fields in response to repeated tool use. This process aligns or merges the co-actors’ spatial representations and creates a “Shared Action Space” (SAS) supporting key computations of social interactions and joint actions; for example, the remapping between the coordinate systems and frames of reference of the co-actors, including perspective taking, the sensorimotor transformations required for lifting jointly an object, and the predictions of the sensory effects of such joint action. The social re-calibration is proposed to be based on common basis function maps (BFMs) and could constitute an optimal solution to sensorimotor transformation and multisensory integration in joint action or more in general social interaction contexts. However, certain situations such as discrepant postural and viewpoint alignment and associated differences in perspectives between the co-actors could constrain the process quite differently. We discuss how alignment is achieved in the first place, and how it is maintained over time, providing a taxonomy of various forms and mechanisms of space alignment and overlap based, for instance, on automaticity vs. control of the transformations between the two agents. Finally, we discuss the link between low-level mechanisms for the sharing of space and high-level mechanisms for the sharing of cognitive representations.

When co-action eliminates the Simon effect: disentangling the impact of co-actor's presence and task sharing on joint-task performance

This study aimed at assessing whether the mere belief of performing a task with another person, who is in charge of the complementary part of the task, is sufficient for the so-called joint Simon effect to occur. In all three experiments of the study, participants sat alone in a room and underwent two consecutive Go/NoGo tasks that were identical except for the instructions. In Experiment 1, participants performed the task first individually (baseline task), and then either co-acting with another person who responded from an unknown location to the NoGo stimuli (joint task) or imaging themselves responding to the NoGo stimuli (imaginative task). Relative to the baseline, the instructions of the imaginative task made the Simon effect occur, while those of the joint task were ineffective in eliciting the effect. This result suggests that sharing a task with a person who is known to be in charge of the complementary task, but is not physically present, is not sufficient to induce the representation of an alternative response able to produce interference, which happens instead when the instructions explicitly require to imagine such a response. Interestingly, we observed that when the Simon effect was already present in the baseline task (i.e., when the response alternative to the Go response was represented in the individual task due to non-social factors), it disappeared in the joint task. We propose that, when no information about the co-actor's position is available, the division of labor between the participant and co-actor allows participants to filter out the possible (incidental) representation of the alternative response from their task representation, thus eliminating potential sources of interference. This account is supported by the results of Experiments 2 and 3 and suggests that under certain circumstances task-sharing may reduce the interference produced by the irrelevant information, rather than increase it.

Perturbing the action observation network during perception and categorization of actions' goals and grips: state-dependency and virtual lesion TMS effects

Watching others grasping and using objects activates an action observation network (AON), including inferior frontal (IFC), anterior intraparietal (AIP), and somatosensory cortices (S1). Yet, causal evidence of the differential involvement of such AON sensorimotor nodes in representing high- and low-level action components (i.e., end-goals and grip type) is meager. To address this issue, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation-adaptation (TMS-A) during 2 novel action perception tasks. Participants were shown adapting movies displaying a demonstrator performing goal-directed actions with a tool, using either power or precision grips. They were then asked to match the end-goal (Goal-recognition task) or the grip (Grip-recognition task) of actions shown in test pictures to the adapting movies. TMS was administered over IFC, AIP, or S1 during presentation of test pictures. Virtual lesion-like effects were found in the Grip-recognition task where IFC stimulation induced a general performance decrease, suggesting a critical role of IFC in perceiving grips. In the Goal-recognition task, IFC and S1 stimulation differently affected the processing of "adapted" and "nonadapted" goals. These "state-dependent" effects suggest that the overall goal of seen actions is encoded into functionally distinct and spatially overlapping neural populations in IFC-S1 and such encoding is critical for recognizing and understanding end-goals.