The spatial logic of fear

Peripersonal space (PPS) refers to the space surrounding the body. PPS is characterised by distinctive patterns of multisensory integration and sensory-motor interaction. In addition, facial expressions have been shown to modulate PPS representation. In this study we tested whether fearful faces lead to a different distribution of spatial attention, compared to neutral and joyful faces. Participants responded to tactile stimuli on the cheeks, while watching looming neutral, joyful (Experiment 1) or fearful (Experiment 2) faces of an avatar, appearing in far or near space. To probe spatial attention, when the tactile stimulus was delivered, a static ball briefly appeared central or peripheral in participant's vision, respectively ≈1° or ≈10° to the left or right of the face. With neutral and joyful faces, simple reactions to tactile stimuli were facilitated in near rather than in far space, replicating classic PPS effects, and in the presence of central rather than peripheral ball, suggesting that attention may be focused in the immediate surrounding of the face. However, when the face was fearful, response to tactile stimuli was modulated not only by the distance of the face from the participant, but also by the position of the ball. Specifically, in near space only, response to tactile stimuli was additionally facilitated by the peripheral compared to the central ball. These results suggest that as fearful faces come closer to the body, they promote a redirection of attention towards the periphery. Given the sensory-motor functions of PPS, this fear-evoked redirection of attention would enhance the defensive function of PPS specifically when it is most needed, i.e. when the source of threat is nearby, but its location has not yet been identified

Fearful faces modulate spatial processing in peripersonal space: An ERP study

Peripersonal space (PPS) represents the region of space surrounding the body. A pivotal function of PPS is to coordinate defensive responses to threat. We have previously shown that a centrally-presented, looming fearful face, signalling a potential threat in one's surroundings, modulates spatial processing by promoting a redirection of sensory resources away from the face towards the periphery, where the threat may be expected – but only when the face is presented in near, rather than far space. Here, we use electrophysiological measures to investigate the neural mechanism underlying this effect. Participants made simple responses to tactile stimuli delivered on the cheeks, while watching task-irrelevant neutral or fearful avatar faces, looming towards them either in near or far space. Simultaneously with the tactile stimulation, a ball with a checkerboard pattern (probe) appeared to the left or right of the avatar face. Crucially, this probe could either be close to the avatar face, and thus more central in the participant's vision, or further away from the avatar face, and thus more peripheral in the participant's vision. Electroencephalography was continuously recorded. Behavioural results confirmed that in near space only, and for fearful relative to neutral faces, tactile processing was facilitated by the peripheral compared to the central probe. This behavioural effect was accompanied by a reduction of the N1 mean amplitude elicited by the peripheral probe for fearful relative to neutral faces. Moreover, the faster the participants responded to tactile stimuli with the peripheral probe, relative to the central, the smaller was their N1. Together these results, suggest that fearful faces intruding into PPS may increase expectation of a visual event occurring in the periphery. This fear-induced effect would enhance the defensive function of PPS when it is most needed, i.e., when the source of threat is nearby, but its location remains unknown

An ERP Investigation on Visuotactile Interactions in Peripersonal and Extrapersonal Space: Evidence for the Spatial Rule

The spatial rule of multisensory integration holds that cross-modal stimuli presented from the same spatial location result in enhanced multisensory integration. The present study investigated whether processing within the somatosensory cortex reflects the strength of cross-modal visuotactile interactions depending on the spatial relationship between visual and tactile stimuli. Visual stimuli were task-irrelevant and were presented simultaneously with touch in peripersonal and extrapersonal space, in the same or opposite hemispace with respect to the tactile stimuli. Participants directed their attention to one of their hands to detect infrequent tactile target stimuli at that hand while ignoring tactile targets at the unattended hand, all tactile nontarget stimuli, and any visual stimuli. Enhancement of ERPs recorded over and close to the somatosensory cortex was present as early as 100 msec after onset of stimuli (i.e., overlapping with the P100 component) when visual stimuli were presented next to the site of tactile stimulation (i.e., perihand space) compared to when these were presented at different locations in peripersonal or extrapersonal space. Therefore, this study provides electrophysiological support for the spatial rule of visual–tactile interaction in human participants. Importantly, these early cross-modal spatial effects occurred regardless of the locus of attention. In addition, and in line with previous research, we found attentional modulations of somatosensory processing only to be present in the time range of the N140 component and for longer latencies with an enhanced negativity for tactile stimuli at attended compared to unattended locations. Taken together, the pattern of the results from this study suggests that visuotactile spatial effects on somatosensory processing occur prior and independent of tactile–spatial attention

Influence of Motor Planning on Distance Perception within the Peripersonal Space

We examined whether movement costs as defined by movement magnitude have an impact on distance perception in near space. In Experiment 1, participants were given a numerical cue regarding the amplitude of a hand movement to be carried out. Before the movement execution, the length of a visual distance had to be judged. These visual distances were judged to be larger, the larger the amplitude of the concurrently prepared hand movement was. In Experiment 2, in which numerical cues were merely memorized without concurrent movement planning, this general increase of distance with cue size was not observed. The results of these experiments indicate that visual perception of near space is specifically affected by the costs of planned hand movements

I Feel what You Feel if You Are Similar to Me

Social interactions are influenced by the perception of others as similar or dissimilar to the self. Such judgements could depend on physical and semantic characteristics, such as membership in an ethnic or political group. In the present study we tested whether social representations of the self and of others could affect the perception of touch. To this aim, we assessed tactile perception on the face when subjects observed a face being touched by fingers. In different conditions we manipulated the identity of the shown face. In a first experiment, Caucasian and Maghrebian participants viewed a face belonging either to their own or to a different ethnic group; in a second experiment, Liberal and Conservative politically active participants viewed faces of politicians belonging to their own or to the opposite political party. The results showed that viewing a touched face most strongly enhanced the perception of touch on the observer's face when the observed face belonged to his/her own ethnic or political group

Observed Touch on a Non-Human Face Is Not Remapped onto the Human Observer's Own Face

Visual remapping of touch (VRT) is a phenomenon in which seeing a human face being touched enhances detection of tactile stimuli on the observer's own face, especially when the observed face expresses fear. This study tested whether VRT would occur when seeing touch on monkey faces and whether it would be similarly modulated by facial expressions. Human participants detected near-threshold tactile stimulation on their own cheeks while watching fearful, happy, and neutral human or monkey faces being concurrently touched or merely approached by fingers. We predicted minimal VRT for neutral and happy monkey faces but greater VRT for fearful monkey faces. The results with human faces replicated previous findings, demonstrating stronger VRT for fearful expressions than for happy or neutral expressions. However, there was no VRT (i.e. no difference between accuracy in touch and no-touch trials) for any of the monkey faces, regardless of facial expression, suggesting that touch on a non-human face is not remapped onto the somatosensory system of the human observer

The Role of Motor Learning in Spatial Adaptation near a Tool

Some visual-tactile (bimodal) cells have visual receptive fields (vRFs) that overlap and extend moderately beyond the skin of the hand. Neurophysiological evidence suggests, however, that a vRF will grow to encompass a hand-held tool following active tool use but not after passive holding. Why does active tool use, and not passive holding, lead to spatial adaptation near a tool? We asked whether spatial adaptation could be the result of motor or visual experience with the tool, and we distinguished between these alternatives by isolating motor from visual experience with the tool. Participants learned to use a novel, weighted tool. The active training group received both motor and visual experience with the tool, the passive training group received visual experience with the tool, but no motor experience, and finally, a no-training control group received neither visual nor motor experience using the tool. After training, we used a cueing paradigm to measure how quickly participants detected targets, varying whether the tool was placed near or far from the target display. Only the active training group detected targets more quickly when the tool was placed near, rather than far, from the target display. This effect of tool location was not present for either the passive-training or control groups. These results suggest that motor learning influences how visual space around the tool is represented

Motor Properties of Peripersonal Space in Humans

Background: A stimulus approaching the body requires fast processing and appropriate motor reactions. In monkeys, fronto-parietal networks are involved both in integrating multisensory information within a limited space surrounding the body (i.e. peripersonal space, PPS) and in action planning and execution, suggesting an overlap between sensory representations of space and motor representations of action. In the present study we investigate whether these overlapping representations also exist in the human brain. Methodology/Principal Findings: We recorded from hand muscles motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by single-pulse of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) after presenting an auditory stimulus either near the hand or in far space. MEPs recorded 50 ms after the near-sound onset were enhanced compared to MEPs evoked after far sounds. This near-far modulation faded at longer inter-stimulus intervals, and reversed completely for MEPs recorded 300 ms after the sound onset. At that time point, higher motor excitability was associated with far sounds. Such auditory modulation of hand motor representation was specific to a hand-centred, and not a body-centred reference frame. Conclusions/Significance: This pattern of corticospinal modulation highlights the relation between space and time in the PPS representation: an early facilitation for near stimuli may reflect immediate motor preparation, whereas, at later time intervals, motor preparation relates to distant stimuli potentially approaching the body

Spatio-Temporal Features of Visual Exploration in Unilaterally Brain-Damaged Subjects with or without Neglect: Results from a Touchscreen Test

Cognitive assessment in a clinical setting is generally made by pencil-and-paper tests, while computer-based tests enable the measurement and the extraction of additional performance indexes. Previous studies have demonstrated that in a research context exploration deficits occur also in patients without evidence of unilateral neglect at pencil-and-paper tests. The objective of this study is to apply a touchscreen-based cancellation test, feasible also in a clinical context, to large groups of control subjects and unilaterally brain-damaged patients, with and without unilateral spatial neglect (USN), in order to assess disturbances of the exploratory skills. A computerized cancellation test on a touchscreen interface was used for assessing the performance of 119 neurologically unimpaired control subjects and 193 patients with unilateral right or left hemispheric brain damage, either with or without USN. A set of performance indexes were defined including Latency, Proximity, Crossings and their spatial lateral gradients, and Preferred Search Direction. Classic outcome scores were computed as well. Results show statistically significant differences among groups (assumed p<0.05). Right-brain-damaged patients with USN were significantly slower (median latency per detected item was 1.18 s) and less efficient (about 13 search-path crossings) in the search than controls (median latency 0.64 s; about 3 crossings). Their preferred search direction (53.6% downward, 36.7% leftward) was different from the one in control patients (88.2% downward, 2.1% leftward). Right-brain-damaged patients without USN showed a significantly abnormal behavior (median latency 0.84 s, about 5 crossings, 83.3% downward and 9.1% leftward direction) situated half way between controls and right-brain-damaged patients with USN. Left-brain-damaged patients without USN were significantly slower and less efficient than controls (latency 1.19 s, about 7 crossings), preserving a normal preferred search direction (93.7% downward). Therefore, the proposed touchscreen-based assessment had evidenced disorders in spatial exploration also in patients without clinically diagnosed USN