Cited by 195Embodied and Extended CognitionNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Better Safe Than Sorry? The Safety Margin Surrounding the Body Is Increased by Anxiety

Open access
Sambo, C. F., Iannetti, G. D.·2013·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The defensive peripersonal space represents a "safety margin" advantageous for survival. Its spatial extension and the possible relationship with personality traits have never been investigated. Here, in a population of 15 healthy human participants, we show that the defensive peripersonal space has a sharp boundary, located between 20 and 40 cm from the face, and that within such space there is a thin, "highest-risk area" closest to the face (i.e., an "ultra-near" defensive space). Single-subject analysis revealed clear interindividual differences in the extension of such peripersonal space. These differences are positively related to individual variability in trait anxiety. These findings point to the potential for measuring a range of defensive behaviors in relation to individual levels of anxiety. Such measures will allow developing procedures to test risk assessment abilities, particularly in professions that require reacting quickly to aversive stimuli near the body, such as firemen, policemen, and military officers. This may also lead to possible interventions to improve their performance under pressure.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0706-13.2013

Cites

30 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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 30 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–193 of 193

Metadata

Authors
Sambo, C. F., & Iannetti, G. D.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2013-08-28
Volume
33
Issue
35
Pages
14225-14230
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2043486810
Cited by
195
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
safety margin, trait anxiety, individual differences, risk assessment, occupational safety, defensive behavior
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Female, Humans, Male, Personal Space, Reaction Time

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