Peripersonal perception in action

Synthese - Tập 198 - Trang 4027-4044 - 2018
Frédérique de Vignemont1
1Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS, Département d’études cognitives, Ecole Normale Supérieure, PSL, Paris, France

Tóm tắt

Philosophy of perception is guilty of focusing on the perception of far space, neglecting the possibility that the perception of the space immediately surrounding the body, which is known as peripersonal space, displays different properties. Peripersonal space is the space in which the world is literally at hand for interaction. It is also the space in which the world can become threatening and dangerous, requiring protective behaviours. Recent research in cognitive neuroscience has yielded a vast array of discoveries on the multisensory and sensorimotor specificities of the processing of peripersonal space. Yet very little has been done on their philosophical implications. Here I will raise the following question: in what manner does the visual experience of a big rock close to my foot differ from the visual experience of the moon in the sky?

Tài liệu tham khảo

Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035–1047. Avenanti, A., Annela, L., & Serino, A. (2012). Suppression of premotor cortex disrupts motor coding of peripersonal space. Neuroimage, 63(1), 281–288. Bain, D. (2013). What makes pains unpleasant? Philosophical Studies, 166, S69–S89. Bartolo, A., Coello, Y., Edwards, M. G., Delepoulle, S., Endo, S., & Wing, A. M. (2014). Contribution of the motor system to the perception of reachable space: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 40(12), 3807–3817. Bassolino, M., Finisguerra, A., Canzoneri, E., Serino, A., & Pozzo, T. (2015). Dissociating effect of upper limb non-use and overuse on space and body representations. Neuropsychologia, 70, 385–392. Battaglini, P. P., Muzur, A., Galletti, C., Skrap, M., Brovelli, A., & Fattori, P. (2002). Effects of lesions to area V6A in monkeys. Experimental Brain Research, 144(3), 419–422. Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1076–1096. Blini, E., Desoche, C., Salemme, R., Kabil, A., Hadj-Bouziane, F., Farnè, A. (in press). Mind the depth: Visual perception of shapes is better in peripersonal space. Psychological Science. Briscoe, R. (2009). Egocentric spatial representation in action and perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79, 423–460. Briscoe, R., & Schwenkler, J. (2015). Conscious vision in action. Cognitive Science, 39, 1435–1467. Brozzoli, C., Makin, T. R., Cardinali, L., Holmes, N. P., & Farnè, A. (2012). Peripersonal space: A multisensory interface for body–object interactions. In M. M. Murray & M. T. Wallace (Eds.), The neural bases of multisensory processes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Caiani, S. Z. (2013). Extending the notion of affordance. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13, 275–293. Canzoneri, E., Magosso, E., & Serino, A. (2012). Dynamic sounds capture the boundaries of peripersonal space representation in humans. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e44306. Canzoneri, E., Marzolla, M., Amoresano, A., Verni, G., & Serino, A. (2013). Amputation and prosthesis implantation shape body and peripersonal space representations. Scientific Reports, 3, 2844. Cardinali, L., Frassinetti, F., Brozzoli, C., Urquizar, C., Roy, A. C., & Farnè, A. (2009). Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Current Biology, 19(12), R478–R479. Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195. Clark, A. (2001). Visual experience and motor action: Are the bonds too tight? Philosophical Review, 110(4), 495–519. Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Tieri, G., Sinigaglia, C., & Committeri, G. (2010). Where does an object trigger an action? An investigation about affordances in space. Experimental Brain Research, 207(1–2), 95–103. Cussins, A. (2012). Environmental representation of the body. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1), 15–32. Cutting, J. E., & Vishton, P. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. J. Rogers (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (pp. 69–117). San Diego: Academic Press. Di Pellegrino, G., Làdavas, E., & Farnè, A. (1997). Seeing where your hands are. Nature, 388, 730. Dufour, A., & Touzalin, P. (2008). Improved visual sensitivity in the perihand space. Experimental Brain Research, 190(1), 91–98. Durgin, F., Baird, J., Greenburg, M., Russell, R., Shaughnessy, K., & Waymouth, S. (2009). Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 964–969. Engel, A. K., Fries, P., & Singer, W. (2001). Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing. Nature Review Neuroscience, 2(10), 704–716. Evans, G. (1985). Molyneux’s Question. In A. Phillips (Ed.), The collected papers of gareth evans. London: Oxford University Press. Ferretti, G. (2016). Visual feeling of presence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 99, 112–136. Freud, E., Culham, J. C., Plaut, D. C., & Behrmann, M. (2017). The large-scale organization of shape processing in the ventral and dorsal pathways. eLife, 6, e27576. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Boston Mifflin. Goodhew, S. C., Edwards, M., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2015). Altered visual perception near the hands: A critical review of attentional and neurophysiological models. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 55, 223–233. Gozli, D. G., West, G. L., & Pratt, J. (2012). Hand position alters vision by biasing processing through different visual pathways. Cognition, 124(2), 244–250. Grahek, N. (2001). Feeling pain and being in pain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Graziano, M. (2009). The intelligent movement machine: An ethological perspective on the primate motor system. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Graziano, M. S., & Cooke, D. F. (2006). Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia, 44(6), 845–859. Graziano, M. S., & Gross, C. G. (1993). A bimodal map of space: Somatosensory receptive fields in the macaque putamen with corresponding visual receptive fields. Experimental Brain Research, 97, 96–109. Grush, R. (2007). Skill theory v2.0: Dispositions, emulation, and spatial perception. Synthese, 159(3), 389–416. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday & Co. Hediger, H. (1950). Wild animals in captivity. London: Butterworths Scientific Publications. Hyvärinen, J., & Poranen, A. (1974). Function of the parietal associative area 7 as revealed from cellular discharges in alert monkeys. Brain, 97(4), 673–692. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport, 7(14), 2325–2330. Kelly, S. P., & Brockmole, J. R. (2014). Hand proximity differentially affects visual working memory for color and orientation in a binding task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 318. Klein, C. (2015). What the body commands. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. London: Kegan Paul Trench, Trubner & Co. Króliczak, G., Heard, P., Goodale, M. A., & Gregory, R. L. (2006). Dissociation of perception and action unmasked by the hollow-face illusion. Brain Research, 1080(1), 9–16. Legrain, V., Iannetti, G. D., Plaghki, L., & Mouraux, A. (2011). The pain matrix reloaded: A salience detection system for the body. Progress in Neurobiology, 93(1), 111–124. Longo, M. R., & Lourenco, S. F. (2006). On the nature of near space: Effects of tool use and the transition to far space. Neuropsychologia, 44(6), 977–981. Lourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2009). The plasticity of near space: Evidence for contraction. Cognition, 112(3), 451–456. Maravita, A., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2003). Multisensory integration and the body schema: Close to hand and within reach. Current Biology, 13(13), R531–R539. Martínez, M. (2011). Imperative content and the painfulness of pain. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10(1), 67–90. Matthen, M. (2005). Seeing, doing and knowing: A philosophical theory of sense perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 46(3), 774–785. Nijboer, T. C. W., Ten Brink, A. F., Kouwenhoven, M., & Visser-Meily, J. M. A. (2014). Functional assessment of region-specific neglect: Are there differential behavioural consequences of peripersonal versus extrapersonal neglect? Behavioural Neurology, 2014, 526407. Reed, C. L., Betz, R., Garza, J. P., & Roberts, R. J. (2010). Grab it! Biased attention in functional hand and tool space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(1), 236–245. Reed, C. L., Grubb, J. D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (1997). The space around us. Science, 277(5323), 190–191. Rizzolatti, G., Scandolara, C., Matelli, M., & Gentilucci, M. (1981). Afferent properties of periarcuate neurons in macaque monkeys. II. Visual responses. Behavioural Brain Research, 2(2), 147–163. Siegel, S. (2014). Affordances and the contents of perception. In B. Brogaard (Ed.), Does perception have content?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, A. (2009). Acting on bodily experiences. Psyche, 5(1), 82–99. Spence, C., Pavani, F., & Driver, J. (2004). Spatial constraints on visual-tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 4(2), 148–169. 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(3), 830–846.