CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cynophobic Fear Adaptively Extends Peri-Personal Space

Taffou, Marine, Viaud-Delmon, Isabelle·2014·Frontiers in Psychiatry
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00122PMC PMC4153021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00122

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Audiotactile test. (A). Description of a trial. (B) Experimental setup. Participants received a tactile stimulus at their hand while task-irrelevant sounds (threatening or non-threatening) approached them from the rear hemi-field, either in the left or the right hemi-space. When participants perceived the tactile stimulation, the looming sounds were located at different distances; this was accomplished by delivering the tactile stimulus at different temporal delays starting from sound onset (Tbefore, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, Tafter). The sound source location at each temporal delay condition is indicated by triangles (black triangles for the left hemi-space and white triangles for the right hemi-space).
Figure 1 Audiotactile test. (A). Description of a trial. (B) Experimental setup. Participants received a tactile stimulus at their hand while task-irrelevant sounds (threatening or non-threatening) approached them from the rear hemi-field, either in the left or the right hemi-space. When participants perceived the tactile stimulation, the looming sounds were located at different distances; this was accomplished by delivering the tactile stimulus at different temporal delays starting from sound onset (Tbefore, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, Tafter). The sound source location at each temporal delay condition is indicated by triangles (black triangles for the left hemi-space and white triangles for the right hemi-space).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Emotional evaluation task results. This figure depicts the perceived arousal and valence scores (mean ± SEM) reported by the dog-fearful (in black, nDF = 15) and non-fearful (in white, nNF = 15) groups in response to the non-threatening (circles) and threatening (squares) sounds, in the pre- (left) and post-audiotactile task (right) emotional evaluations. The perceived valence of the dog sound was more negative than the perceived valence of the sheep sound within each group and in both emotional evaluations. Moreover, within each group, while the sheep sound was rated as positive or neutral, the dog sound was rated as negative.
Figure 2 Emotional evaluation task results. This figure depicts the perceived arousal and valence scores (mean ± SEM) reported by the dog-fearful (in black, nDF = 15) and non-fearful (in white, nNF = 15) groups in response to the non-threatening (circles) and threatening (squares) sounds, in the pre- (left) and post-audiotactile task (right) emotional evaluations. The perceived valence of the dog sound was more negative than the perceived valence of the sheep sound within each group and in both emotional evaluations. Moreover, within each group, while the sheep sound was rated as positive or neutral, the dog sound was rated as negative.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Main experiment results. Participants performed the audiotactile task by responding to a tactile stimulation while a task-irrelevant threatening (dog growling) or non-threatening (sheep bleating) sound was looming toward them. This figure reports the mean tactile reactions times (±SEM) for the dog-fearful (top graph) and non-fearful group (bottom graph) in the threatening (black square) or non-threatening (white circles) sound conditions as a function of the delay of tactile stimulation delivery from sound onset. Reaction times were fitted with a sigmoid function. The inflection point abscissa of the sigmoid curves was computed as a measure of the temporal delay, i.e., the distance, at which sound starts affecting tactile RTs and was analyzed in order to quantify PPS boundaries. (A) Dog-fearful group results. The abscissa of the curve’s inflection point was lower in the threatening sound condition (1266.81 ± 287.57 ms, black vertical line) compared to the non-threatening sound condition (1685.49 ± 548.41 ms, dashed vertical line) meaning that PPS boundaries were farther from participants in the presence of the dog sound than in the presence of the sheep sound. (B) Non-fearful group results. The abscissa of the curve’s inflection point did not significantly differ between the threatening (1717.70 ± 413.23 ms, black vertical line) and the non-threatening (1675.15 ± 596.56 ms, dashed vertical line) sound conditions suggesting that participants’ PPS size was similar in the presence of the dog and the sheep sounds. While the dog-fearful group’s PPS was larger than the non-fearful group’s PPS in the presence of the dog sound, there was no significant difference in PPS size between groups in the presence of the sheep sound.
Figure 3 Main experiment results. Participants performed the audiotactile task by responding to a tactile stimulation while a task-irrelevant threatening (dog growling) or non-threatening (sheep bleating) sound was looming toward them. This figure reports the mean tactile reactions times (±SEM) for the dog-fearful (top graph) and non-fearful group (bottom graph) in the threatening (black square) or non-threatening (white circles) sound conditions as a function of the delay of tactile stimulation delivery from sound onset. Reaction times were fitted with a sigmoid function. The inflection point abscissa of the sigmoid curves was computed as a measure of the temporal delay, i.e., the distance, at which sound starts affecting tactile RTs and was analyzed in order to quantify PPS boundaries. (A) Dog-fearful group results. The abscissa of the curve’s inflection point was lower in the threatening sound condition (1266.81 ± 287.57 ms, black vertical line) compared to the non-threatening sound condition (1685.49 ± 548.41 ms, dashed vertical line) meaning that PPS boundaries were farther from participants in the presence of the dog sound than in the presence of the sheep sound. (B) Non-fearful group results. The abscissa of the curve’s inflection point did not significantly differ between the threatening (1717.70 ± 413.23 ms, black vertical line) and the non-threatening (1675.15 ± 596.56 ms, dashed vertical line) sound conditions suggesting that participants’ PPS size was similar in the presence of the dog and the sheep sounds. While the dog-fearful group’s PPS was larger than the non-fearful group’s PPS in the presence of the dog sound, there was no significant difference in PPS size between groups in the presence of the sheep sound.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

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Rizzolatti, 1997, The space around us, Science, 277, 190, 10.1126/science.277.5323.190 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Graziano, 2006, Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior, Neuropsychologia, 44, 845, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Hall, 1966, The Hidden Dimension
  4. Hayduk, 1978, Personal space: an evaluative and orienting overview, Psychol Bull, 85, 117, 10.1037//0033-2909.85.1.117 · DOI
  5. Aiello, 1987, Human spatial behavior, 389
  6. Serino, 2007, Extended multisensory space in blind cane users, Psychol Sci, 18, 642, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01952.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. Teneggi, 2013, Social modulation of peripersonal space boundaries, Curr Biol, 23, 406, 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.043 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Lloyd, 2009, Don’t stand so close to me: the effect of auditory input on interpersonal space, Perception, 38, 617, 10.1068/p6317 · DOI
  9. Lourenco, 2009, The plasticity of near space: evidence for contraction, Cognition, 112, 451, 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.011 · DOI
  10. Tajadura-Jiménez, 2011, I-space: the effects of emotional valence and source of music on interpersonal distance, PLoS One, 6, e26083, 10.1371/journal.pone.0026083 · DOI
  11. Spielberger, 1983, Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y)
  12. Tajadura-Jiménez, 2010, Embodied auditory perception: the emotional impact of approaching and receding sound sources, Emotion, 10, 216, 10.1037/a0018422 · DOI
  13. Taffou, 2013, Auditory–visual aversive stimuli modulate the conscious experience of fear, Multisens Res, 26, 347, 10.1163/22134808-00002424 · DOI
  14. Brendel, 2012, Threatening pictures induce shortened time-to-contact estimates, Atten Percept Psychophys, 74, 979, 10.3758/s13414-012-0285-0 · DOI
  15. Vagnoni, 2012, Threat modulates perception of looming visual stimuli, Curr Biol, 22, R826, 10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.053 · DOI
  16. Kennedy, 2009, Personal space regulation by the human amygdala, Nat Neurosci, 12, 1226, 10.1038/nn.2381.Personal · DOI
  17. Lourenco, 2011, Near space and its relation to claustrophobic fear, Cognition, 119, 448, 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.009 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Dosey, 1969, Personal space and self-protection, J Pers Soc Psychol, 11, 93, 10.1037/h0027040 · DOI
  19. Lang, 1963, Experimental desensitization of a phobia, J Abnorm Soc Psychol, 66, 519, 10.1037/h0039828 · DOI
  20. Previc, 1998, The neuropsychology of 3-D space, Psychol Bull, 124, 123, 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.123 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Viaud-Delmon, 2011, Behavioral models for anxiety and multisensory integration in animals and humans, Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry, 35, 1391, 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.09.016 · DOI
  22. Jones, 1996, Do agoraphobics interpret the environment in large shops and supermarkets differently?, Br J Clin Psychol, 35, 635, 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01220.x · DOI
  23. Kallai, 2007, Cognitive and affective aspects of thigmotaxis strategy in humans, Behav Neurosci, 121, 21, 10.1037/0735-7044.121.1.21 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 92

Metadata

Authors
Taffou, M., & Viaud-Delmon, I.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2014-09-03
Volume
5
ISSN
1664-0640
DOI
10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00122
PMC
PMC4153021
Cited by
92
References
4

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