Review
Altered visual perception near the hands: A critical review of attentional and neurophysiological models

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.006Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Critically analyses perception findings in near-hand space in light of theories.

  • Clarifies ambiguity in predictions from different theories.

  • Offers novel synthesis of attentional and neurophysiological accounts.

Abstract

Visual perception changes as a function of hand proximity. While various theoretical accounts have been offered for this alteration (attentional prioritisation, bimodal cell involvement, detailed evaluation, and magnocellular neuron input enhancement), the current literature lacks consensus on these mechanisms. The purpose of this review, therefore, is to critically review the existing body of literature in light of these distinct theoretical accounts. We find that a growing number of results support the magnocellular (M-cell) enhancement account, and are difficult to reconcile with general attention-based explanations. Despite this key theoretical development in the field, there has been some ambiguity with interpretations offered in recent papers, for example, equating the existing attentional and M-cell based explanations, when in fact they make contrasting predictions. We therefore highlight the differential predictions arising from the distinct theoretical accounts. Importantly, however, we also offer novel perspectives that synthesises the role of attention and neurophysiological mechanisms in understanding altered visual perception near the hands. We envisage that this theoretical development will ensure that the field can progress from documenting behavioural differences, to a consensus on the underlying visual and neurophysiological mechanisms.

Section snippets

Near-hand space

A body of literature indicates that visual perception and performance is altered when visual stimuli occur in the space near the hands (see Brockmole et al., 2013; for a review). That is, identical visual information is processed differently dependent on the relationship between the visual information and the observer's hands. The typical laboratory set-up in which near versus far-hand space is manipulated is to have observers place their hands on response-equipment attached to either side of

Visual attention

Visual attention is a process in which particular stimuli are selected for privileged processing at the expense of others. This process of selection is thought to be necessary, so as not to overwhelm the brain's limited perceptual and cognitive processing resources (Broadbent, 1958, Desimone and Duncan, 1995, Kastner and Pinsk, 2004). This process can operate in a bottom-up or reflexive manner, in which brute stimulus energy or salience determines the stimuli that are selected (Jonides and

Results for further theoretical analysis

As noted above, the M-cell enhancement account offers an alternative possible explanation (to detailed-evaluation theory) for Abrams et al.’s (2008) slowed visual search and poorer T2 identification in the AB, if we assume that these paradigms used high spatial frequency alphanumeric stimuli, unsuitable for M-cell processing (but see section on synthesising attentional and neurophysiological explanations for a critique of this assumption). The finding of reduced IOR in response to flashed cues,

Synthesising attentional and neurophysiological explanations

The motivation for this review arose from some confusion and ambiguity in the literature about equating existing attentional and M-cell enhancement accounts, despite the fact that they make contrasting predictions about performance for different types of visual tasks. For example, the M-cell enhancement account correctly predicts the impairment on spatial gap discrimination tasks for near relative to far-hand space, whereas attentional prioritisation would predict improved perceptual

Conclusion

As reviewed above, there has been a pervasive lack of predictive precision when ‘attention’ is invoked as an explanation for altered visual processing near the hands. Attentional prioritisation (Reed et al., 2006, Reed et al., 2010) and detailed evaluation and prolonged disengagement (Abrams et al., 2008) appear to contradict one another, and both have difficulty explaining many of the emerging findings, which implicate a trade-off whereby spatial acuity and colour perception is impaired while

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE140101734) awarded to S.C.G., ARC Discovery Project (DP110104553) awarded to M.E, a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grants awarded S.F. and J.P. Correspondence regarding this study should be addressed to Stephanie Goodhew ([email protected]), Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University.

References (114)

  • D. Kahneman et al.

    The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information

    Cognit. Psychol.

    (1992)
  • R.M. Klein

    Inhibition of return

    Trends Cogn. Sci.

    (2000)
  • G.E. Legge

    Sustained and transient mechanisms in human vision: temporal and spatial properties

    Vis. Res.

    (1978)
  • I. Luiga et al.

    Luminance processing in object substitution masking

    Vis. Res.

    (2008)
  • M. Mishkin et al.

    Contribution of striate inputs to the visuospatial functions of parieto-preoccipital cortex in monkeys

    Behav. Brain Res.

    (1982)
  • M. Mishkin et al.

    Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways

    Trends Neurosci.

    (1983)
  • J.J. Nassi et al.

    Specialized circuits from primary visual cortex to V2 and area MT

    Neuron

    (2007)
  • M.I. Posner et al.

    How do the parietal lobes direct covert attention?

    Neuropsychologia

    (1987)
  • P.H. Schiller et al.

    The color-opponent and broad-band channels of the primate visual system

    Trends Neurosci.

    (1990)
  • A.M. Treisman et al.

    A feature-integration theory of attention

    Cognit. Psychol.

    (1980)
  • R.A. Abrams et al.

    Trade-offs in visual processing for stimuli near the hands

    Atten. Percept. Psychophys.

    (2013)
  • J.J. Adam et al.

    The closer the better: hand proximity dynamically affects letter recognition accuracy

    Atten. Percept. Psychophys.

    (2012)
  • I. Argyropoulos et al.

    Set size and mask duration do not interact in object-substitution masking

    J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (2013)
  • S.I. Becker et al.

    The role of relational information in contingent capture

    J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (2010)
  • B.R. Bocanegra

    Affecting speed and accuracy in perception

    Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci.

    (2014)
  • B.R. Bocanegra et al.

    Emotion-induced trade-offs in spatiotemporal vision

    J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.

    (2011)
  • D.E. Broadbent

    Perception and Communication

    (1958)
  • J.R. Brockmole et al.

    The world within reach: effects of hand posture and tool use on visual cognition

    Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.

    (2013)
  • C. Brozzoli et al.

    That's near my hand! Parietal and premotor coding of hand-centered space contributes to localization and self-attribution of the hand

    J. Neurosci.

    (2012)
  • D. Chan et al.

    How action influences object perception

    Front. Psychol.

    (2013)
  • M. Coltheart et al.

    Evidence for an integration theory of visual masking

    Q. J. Exp. Psychol.

    (1972)
  • J.D. Cosman et al.

    Attention affects visual perceptual processing near the hand

    Psychol. Sci.

    (2010)
  • C.C. Davoli et al.

    When meaning matters, look but don’t touch: the effects of posture on reading

    Mem. Cognit.

    (2010)
  • F.M. de Monasterio

    Properties of concentrically organized X and Y ganglion cells of macaque retina

    J. Neurophysiol.

    (1978)
  • A.M. Derrington et al.

    Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivities of neurones in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the macaque

    J. Physiol. (Lond.)

    (1984)
  • R. Desimone et al.

    Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention

    Annu. Rev. Neurosci.

    (1995)
  • V. Di Lollo et al.

    Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant visual processes

    J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.

    (2000)
  • B. Dreher et al.

    Identification, classification and anatomical segregation of cells with X-like and Y-like properties in the lateral geniculate nucleus of old-world primates

    J. Physiol.

    (1976)
  • J. Duncan et al.

    Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision

    Nature

    (1994)
  • P.E. Dux et al.

    How humans search for targets through time: a review of data and theory from the attentional blink

    Atten. Percept. Psychophys.

    (2009)
  • J.T. Enns et al.

    Object substitution: a new form of masking in unattended visual locations

    Psychol. Sci.

    (1997)
  • J.T. Enns et al.

    The duration of a brief event in the mind's eye

    J. Gen. Psychol.

    (1999)
  • C.W. Eriksen et al.

    Some characteristics of selective attention in visual perception determined by vocal reaction time

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1972)
  • C.W. Eriksen et al.

    Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: a zoom lens model

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1986)
  • C.W. Eriksen et al.

    Allocation of attention in the visual field

    J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (1985)
  • Y. Festman et al.

    Both hand position and movement direction modulate visual attention

    Front. Psychol.

    (2013)
  • Y. Festman et al.

    Continuous hand movement induces a far-hand bias in attentional priority

    Atten. Percept. Psychophys.

    (2013)
  • H.L. Filmer et al.

    Size (mostly) doesn’t matter: the role of set size in object substitution masking

    Atten. Percept. Psychophys.

    (2014)
  • C.L. Folk et al.

    Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings

    J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (1992)
  • T. Ganel et al.

    Visual control of action but not perception requires analytical processing of object shape

    Nature

    (2003)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text