CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 248Multisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory InteractionsVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dynamic Sounds Capture the Boundaries of Peripersonal Space Representation in Humans

Open access
Canzoneri, Elisa, Magosso, Elisa, Serino, Andrea·2012·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0044306PMC PMC3460958
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We physically interact with external stimuli when they occur within a limited space immediately surrounding the body, i.e., Peripersonal Space (PPS). In the primate brain, specific fronto-parietal areas are responsible for the multisensory representation of PPS, by integrating tactile, visual and auditory information occurring on and near the body. Dynamic stimuli are particularly relevant for PPS representation, as they might refer to potential harms approaching the body. However, behavioural tasks for studying PPS representation with moving stimuli are lacking. Here we propose a new dynamic audio-tactile interaction task in order to assess the extension of PPS in a more functionally and ecologically valid condition. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants vocally responded to a tactile stimulus administered at the hand at different delays from the onset of task-irrelevant dynamic sounds which gave the impression of a sound source either approaching or receding from the subject's hand. Results showed that a moving auditory stimulus speeded up the processing of a tactile stimulus at the hand as long as it was perceived at a limited distance from the hand, that is within the boundaries of PPS representation. The audio-tactile interaction effect was stronger when sounds were approaching compared to when sounds were receding. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides a new method to dynamically assess pps representation: The function describing the relationship between tactile processing and the position of sounds in space can be used to estimate the location of PPS boundaries, along a spatial continuum between far and near space, in a valuable and ecologically significant way.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0044306

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experimental setup. Panel A. Procedure. Subjects received a tactile stimulus at their hand while task-irrelevant sounds either approached to or receded from the hand. Tactile stimuli were delivered at different temporal delays from sound onset (from T1 to T5), so that they were processed when sounds were perceived at a different distance from the hand. Panel B. Sound localization experiment results. The graph shows subject’s mean responses indicating the perceived position of sound in space when they receive a tactile stimulus at different temporal delays from sound onset, from T1 to T5. Filled line refers to IN sound condition, hatched line refers to OUT sound condition. Error bars denote S.E.M. A repeated measure ANOVA with Sound (IN, OUT) and Temporal Delay (from T1 to T5) confirmed that IN and OUT were perceived as an approaching and receding auditory stimuli, respectively, as clearly shown by the significant two-way interaction (F(4,24) = 304.30, p<0.00001).
Figure 1 Experimental setup. Panel A. Procedure. Subjects received a tactile stimulus at their hand while task-irrelevant sounds either approached to or receded from the hand. Tactile stimuli were delivered at different temporal delays from sound onset (from T1 to T5), so that they were processed when sounds were perceived at a different distance from the hand. Panel B. Sound localization experiment results. The graph shows subject’s mean responses indicating the perceived position of sound in space when they receive a tactile stimulus at different temporal delays from sound onset, from T1 to T5. Filled line refers to IN sound condition, hatched line refers to OUT sound condition. Error bars denote S.E.M. A repeated measure ANOVA with Sound (IN, OUT) and Temporal Delay (from T1 to T5) confirmed that IN and OUT were perceived as an approaching and receding auditory stimuli, respectively, as clearly shown by the significant two-way interaction (F(4,24) = 304.30, p<0.00001).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Effects of IN and OUT sounds on tactile processing. Mean RTs (and S.E.M.) to the tactile target at different temporal delays (from T0 to T6) for IN (filled line) and OUT (hatched line) sounds. The shaded region indicates the duration of the sounds.
Figure 2 Effects of IN and OUT sounds on tactile processing. Mean RTs (and S.E.M.) to the tactile target at different temporal delays (from T0 to T6) for IN (filled line) and OUT (hatched line) sounds. The shaded region indicates the duration of the sounds.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Best fitting function for the relationship between sound position in space and tactile processing. Data from a paradigmatic subject are reported. Figure 3 plots mean RTs (and S.E.M.) at different times of tactile stimulus delivery and the best fitting sigmoidal functions for IN (filled line) and OUT (hatched line) sounds.
Figure 3 Best fitting function for the relationship between sound position in space and tactile processing. Data from a paradigmatic subject are reported. Figure 3 plots mean RTs (and S.E.M.) at different times of tactile stimulus delivery and the best fitting sigmoidal functions for IN (filled line) and OUT (hatched line) sounds.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–246 of 246

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Canzoneri, E., Magosso, E., & Serino, A.
Affiliations
University of Bologna (IT)
Corresponding author
Serino, Andrea
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2012-09-28
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
e44306
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0044306
PMC
PMC3460958
OpenAlex
W1996403482
Cited by
248
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5
FWCI
13.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
peripersonal space, tactile processing, multisensory integration, frontoparietal cortex, spatial perception, ecological validity
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Personal Space, Physical Stimulation, Sound Localization, Space Perception, Touch, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review