221 2008 1599 Article-Web 1..10
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Exp Brain Res (2009) 193:119–128 DOI 10.1007/s00221-008-1599-y RESEARCH ARTICLE Spatial attention aVects the processing of tactile and visual stimuli presented at the tip of a tool: an event-related potential study Zhenzhu Yue · Gérard-Nisal Bischof · Xiaolin Zhou · Charles Spence · Brigitte Röder Received: 6 May 2008 / Accepted: 27 September 2008 / Published online: 21 October 2008 © Springer-Verlag 2008 Abstract An event-related potential (ERP) experiment Introduction was conducted in order to investigate the nature of any cross-modal links in spatial attention during tool use. Tac- When attention is directed to a particular location where task- tile stimuli were delivered from the tip of two sticks, held in relevant events happen to be presented within one (primary) either a crossed or an uncrossed tools posture, while visual sensory modality, target performance is also enhanced when stimuli were presented along the length of each tool. Partic- stimuli are presented in another (secondary) modality at the ipants had to detect tactile deviant stimuli at the end of one same location as well (e.g. Driver and Spence 2004; Eimer stick while trying to ignore all other stimuli. Reliable ERP and Driver 2000; Giard and Peronnet 1999). Event-related spatial attention eVects to tactile stimuli were observed at potential (ERP) studies have provided evidence that cross- early (160–180 ms) and later time epochs (>350 ms) when modal links in spatial attention exist at early, sensory-related the tools were uncrossed. Reliable ERP attention eVects to processing stages, starting around 100 ms post stimulus- visual stimuli presented close to the tip of the tool and close onset or even earlier (see Hillyard et al. 1984; Eimer 2001). to the hand were also observed in the uncrossed tools When stimuli are presented at attended locations, they evoke condition (time epoch 140–180 ms). These results are enhanced ERPs as compared to situations in which the same consistent with the claim that tool-use results in a shift of stimuli are presented at an unattended location (or side), irre- visuospatial attention toward the tip of the tool and also to spective of whether they belong to the task-relevant modality attention being focused by the hand where the touch is felt. (unimodal spatial attentional eVect), or to the currently task- irrelevant modality (cross-modal spatial attentional eVect; Keywords Tool-use · Peripersonal space · Eimer et al. 2001; Hötting et al. 2003). Cross-modal attention · Vision · Touch Cross-modal links in spatial attention have now been extensively studied for both endogenous (voluntary) and exogenous (involuntary) spatial attention (see Driver and Spence 2004; Eimer and van Velzen 2005; Spence et al. 2004). For instance, Kennett et al. (2001) used an exogenous Z. Yue · X. Zhou spatial cueing paradigm, in which spatially non-predictive Department of Psychology, Peking University, 100871 Beijing, China tactile cues were presented to the hand, shortly before to the e-mail: [email protected] visual targets. They found that the visual N1 was enhanced when tactile stimulation was presented from the same rather Z. Yue · G.-N. Bischof · B. Röder (&) than from a diVerent location to a visual target event. Mean- Biological Psychology and Neuropsychology, University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 11, while, other researchers have also provided evidence for the 20146 Hamburg, Germany existence of cross-modal links in endogenous spatial atten- e-mail: [email protected] tion between vision and touch (e.g. Eimer and Driver 2000; Spence et al. 2000). For example, the participants in a study C. Spence Department of Experimental Psychology, by Eimer and Driver had to detect tactile or visual targets on University of Oxford, Oxford, UK the attended side and had to ignore the irrelevant modality 123 120 Exp Brain Res (2009) 193:119–128 and stimuli on the unattended side. They found eVects of tion to the left or right hemiWeld in order to detect infre- endogenous spatial attention for visual ERPs when touch quent tactile deviant stimuli in the attended hemiWeld. ERP was the task-relevant modality but not vice versa. In general, cross-modal attention eVects for the visual probes delivered the ERP spatial attention eVects were always smaller in the near the hands were very similar for both postures, except task-irrelevant or secondary modality than in the primary that they were delayed and reduced in amplitude in the modality. Taken together, results of these studies therefore crossed hands condition. These Wndings therefore suggest provide a growing body of evidence in support of the exis- that tactile stimuli that are applied directly to the hands are tence of cross-modal links in spatial attention between remapped into an external frame of reference. vision and touch. Given that at the earliest stages of infor- It has been suggested that tool use extends the visuotac- mation processing, spatial representations are highly modal- tile representation of peripersonal space (Berti and Frassinetti ity-speciWc (retinotopic in vision, somatotopic in touch, 2000; Farne et al. 2005; Iriki et al. 1996; Maravita et al. head-centered in audition), researchers have frequently 2001). When holding tools in a crossed posture, perfor- argued about the characteristics of the spatial representations mance has been shown to deteriorate in a similar manner as that are used for cross-modal binding of spatial information. when the hands are crossed. Similarly, performance also For the case of visual–tactile interactions, two main worsens quite markedly when the stimuli are delivered to hypotheses have been put forward to explain the existing the tips of tools when hands instead of tools are crossed data. According to the hemispheric-activation account, (Yamamoto and Kitazawa 2001b). With the crossed tools, visual and tactile stimuli on the same side of space will typi- the tip of the tool held with the right hand is located in left cally project initially to the same hemisphere (anatomical visual space, and the tip of the tool held in the left hand is spatial codes), resulting in cross-modal attentional eVects or located in right visual space, while the position of the hands processing advantages for spatially congruent stimuli. is the same in both the crossed and the uncrossed posture According to an alternative hypothesis, cross-modal links in conditions. A conXict between an anatomically and an spatial attention are based on representations of common external frame of reference is expected if tactile stimuli are locations in external space (external spatial codes). Nor- represented according to their origin in external space. mally, researchers have attempted to distinguish between The present study investigated the spatial coordinate sys- these two hypotheses simply by changing the posture of the tems used for locating tactile stimuli delivered to the tips of tactually stimulated limbs. The latter account predicts that two sticks (tools). Moreover, we used ERPs to characterize attending to the left hand leads to attentional beneWts on the the spatial distribution of visual attention in the space left side of visual space with uncrossed hands, but to bene- around the lengths of the sticks. Visual stimuli (LEDs) Wts for the right visual space when hands are crossed. By were delivered in a random order to the tips of tools, near contrast, if crossmodal links depend on a reference frame the hands, and in the middle of the shafts of two tools that is anchored on anatomical coordinates, the position of which were held in the hands. Participants were engaged in the hand is expected to be irrelevant: that is, attending to the a tactile oddball task. They had to attend to the left or the left hand always enhances the processing of visual stimuli in right side of external space, and had to detect deviant tactile the left hemiWeld irrespective of where the hand is located. stimuli delivered at the tip of one tool while ignoring all When a participant’s hands are placed in an uncrossed pos- frequent stimuli at this tool as well as all tactile stimuli pre- ture, the external and anatomical spatial codes for tactile sented to the tip of the other tool. When tactile stimuli were stimuli at the left and right hand are congruent, whereas in delivered at the tip of the tools, we expected to see a similar the crossed hands posture they are incongruent. Both pro- attention eVect on ERPs as have previously been observed cessing speed and accuracy have been found to decrease in for tactile stimuli present directly to the hand (an enhance- the crossed hands condition as compared to the uncrossed ment of the N80 and the N1). Holmes et al. (2004) results hands condition, suggesting that tactile inputs are by default suggest that visual–tactile interactions may only emerge remapped into external coordinates (Schicke and Röder around the proximal and distal tips of the tools. Cross- 2006; Shore et al. 2002; Yamamoto and Kitazawa 2001a, as modal eVects of spatial attention from touch to vision were well). Since congenitally blind participants appear to be thus mainly expected for LEDs at these locations. completely unaVected by the crossing of their hands in the tactile temporal order judgment (TOJ) task, it has been sug- gested that the default use of an external reference frame for Method tactile localization is visually induced (Röder et al. 2004). Eimer et al. (2001) used ERPs in order to investigate Participants cross-modal links between vision and touch both when par- ticipants adopted an uncrossed and when they adopted a This study was conducted at the University of Hamburg crossed hands posture. Participants directed spatial atten- (Germany). Fifteen undergraduate students took part in the 123 Exp Brain Res (2009) 193:119–128 121 experiment.