Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Peripersonal space represents the area around the body where objects are coded in motor terms for the purpose of voluntary goal-directed actions. Previous studies have suggested that peripersonal space is also a safe space linked with our private area, influencing interpersonal space in social contexts. However, whether these two spaces rely on similar embodied processes remains an open issue. In the present study, participants observed a point-light walker (PLW) approaching them from different directions and passing near them at different distances from their right or left shoulder. While approaching, the PLW disappeared at a distance of 2 m and the task for the participants was to estimate if the interpersonal distance, at the time the PLW would have reached their level, was comfortable or not. Between two sessions of comfort judgments, the participants manipulated a 70 cm tool entailing an extension of peripersonal space, or a 10 cm tool entailing no extension of peripersonal space. The results revealed that the comfortable interpersonal distance was larger when the PLW crossed the mid-sagittal plane of the participants than when it approached them laterally, with a concomitant increase of response time. After participants manipulated the long tool, comfortable interpersonal distance increased, but predominantly when the PLW trajectory implied crossing the participants’ mid-sagittal plane. This effect was not observed when participants manipulated the short tool. Two control tasks showed that using the long tool modified the reachability (control 1), but not the time to passage (control 2) estimates of PLW stimuli, suggesting that tool use extended peripersonal space without changing perceived visual distances. Overall, the data show that comfortable interpersonal distance is linked to the representation of peripersonal space. As a consequence, increasing peripersonal space through tool use has the immediate consequence that comfortable interpersonal distance from another person also increases, suggesting that interpersonal-comfort space and peripersonal-reaching space share a common motor nature.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Aiello, J. R., Derisi, D. T., Epstein, Y. M., & Karlin, R. A. (1977). Crowding and the role of interpersonal distance preference. Sociometry, 40, 271–282. CrossRef
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660. PubMed
Bourgeois, J., & Coello, Y. (2012). Effect of visuomotor calibration and uncertainty on the perception of peripersonal space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 1268–1283. CrossRef
Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 341–358. PubMed
Coello, Y., Bourgeois, J., & Iachini, T. (2012). Embodied perception of reachable space: How do we manage threatening objects? Cognitive Processing, 13, 131–135. CrossRef
Coello, Y., & Iachini, T. (2015). Objects and people in space: Towards a unified theoretical framework. In Y. Coello & M. Fischer (Eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition (pp. 198–219). Oxon: Routledge.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Delevoye-Turrell, Y., Vienne, C., & Coello, Y. (2011). Space boundaries for social interactions in schizophrenia: action for accurate judgment of interaction capabilities. Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 193–204. CrossRef
Evans, G. W., & Wener, R. E. (2007). Crowding and personal space invasion on the train: please don’t make me sit in the middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 90–94. CrossRef
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Personal space: An evaluative and orienting overview. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 117–134. CrossRef
Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 201–211. CrossRef
Kaiser, M. K., & Mowafy, L. (1993). Optical specification of time-to- passage: Observers’ sensitivity to global tau. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1028–1040. PubMed
Lockard, J. S., Mcvittie, R. I., & Isaac, L. M. (1977). Functional significance of the affiliative smile. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 367–370. CrossRef
Maravita, A., Spence, C., Kennett, S., & Driver, J. (2002). Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition, 83, 25–34. CrossRef
Mouta, S., Santos, J. A., & López-Moliner, J. (2012). The time to passage of biological and complex motion. Journal of Vision, 12, 1–4. CrossRef
Tajadura-Jiménez, A., Pantelidou, G., Rebacz, P., Västfjäll, D., & Tsakiris, M. (2011). I-space: The Effects of emotional valence and source of music on interpersonal distance. PlosOne, 6, e26083. CrossRef
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846. PubMed
Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 880–888. PubMed
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301, 2191–2194.
- Keeping you at arm’s length: modifying peripersonal space influences interpersonal distance
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg