Spatial action-effect binding depends on type of action-effect transformation

Please always quote using this URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-232781
  • Spatial action–effect binding denotes the mutual attraction between the perceived position of an effector (e.g., one’s own hand) and a distal object that is controlled by this effector. Such spatial binding can be construed as an implicit measure of object ownership, thus the belonging of a controlled object to the own body. The current study investigated how different transformations of hand movements (body-internal action component) into movements of a visual object (body-external action component) affect spatial action–effect binding, andSpatial action–effect binding denotes the mutual attraction between the perceived position of an effector (e.g., one’s own hand) and a distal object that is controlled by this effector. Such spatial binding can be construed as an implicit measure of object ownership, thus the belonging of a controlled object to the own body. The current study investigated how different transformations of hand movements (body-internal action component) into movements of a visual object (body-external action component) affect spatial action–effect binding, and thus implicit object ownership. In brief, participants had to bring a cursor on the computer screen into a predefined target position by moving their occluded hand on a tablet and had to estimate their final hand position. In Experiment 1, we found a significantly lower drift of the proprioceptive position of the hand towards the visual object when hand movements were transformed into laterally inverted cursor movements, rather than cursor movements in the same direction. Experiment 2 showed that this reduction reflected an elimination of spatial action–effect binding in the inverted condition. The results are discussed with respect to the prerequisites for an experience of ownership over artificial, noncorporeal objects. Our results show that predictability of an object movement alone is not a sufficient condition for ownership because, depending on the type of transformation, integration of the effector and a distal object can be fully abolished even under conditions of full controllability.show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar Statistics
Metadaten
Author: Marvin Liesner, Wladimir Kirsch, Roland Pfister, Wilfried Kunde
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-232781
Document Type:Journal article
Faculties:Fakultät für Humanwissenschaften (Philos., Psycho., Erziehungs- u. Gesell.-Wissensch.) / Institut für Psychologie
Language:English
Parent Title (English):Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
ISSN:1943-3921
Year of Completion:2020
Volume:82
Pagenumber:2531–2543
Source:Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics (2020) 82:2531–2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02013-2
DOI:https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02013-2
Dewey Decimal Classification:1 Philosophie und Psychologie / 15 Psychologie / 150 Psychologie
Tag:action–effect compatibility; agency; body ownership; ideomotor theory; proprioceptive drift; spatial binding; tool use
Release Date:2021/06/02
Licence (German):License LogoCC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung 4.0 International