Marks, spaces and boundaries

Dictionary compilers and designers use punctuation to structure and clarify entries and to encode information. Dictionaries with a relatively simple structure can have simple typography, and simple punctuation; as dictionaries grew more complex, and encountered the space constraints of the printed page, complex encoding systems were developed, using punctuation and symbols. Two recent trends have emerged in dictionary design: to eliminate punctuation, and sometimes to use a larger number of fonts, so that the boundaries between elements are indicated by font change, not punctuation.

Imitation of lateralised body movements: doing it the hard way

Two experiments examined imitation of lateralised body movement sequences presented at six viewing angles (0º, 60º, 120º, 180º, 240º, and 300º rotation relative to the participant’s body). Experiment 1 found that, when participants were instructed simply to ‘‘do what the model does’’, at all viewing angles they produced more actions using the same side of the body as the model (anatomical matches), than actions using the opposite side (anatomical non-matches). In Experiment 2 participants were instructed to produce either anatomical matches or anatomical non-matches of observed actions. When the model was viewed from behind (0º), the anatomically matching group were more accurate than the anatomically non-matching group, but the non-matching group was superior when the model faced the participant (180º and 240º). No reliable differences were observed between groups at 60º, 120º, and 300º. In combination, the results of Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that, when they are confronting a model, people choose to imitate the hard way; they attempt to match observed actions anatomically, in spite of the fact that anatomical matching is more subject to error than anatomical non-matching.

Visuotactile learning and body representation: an ERP study with rubber hands and rubber objects

We studied how the integration of seen and felt tactile stimulation modulates somatosensory processing, and investigated whether visuotactile integration depends on temporal contiguity of stimulation, and its coherence with a pre-existing body representation. During training, participants viewed a rubber hand or a rubber object that was tapped either synchronously with stimulation of their own hand, or in an uncorrelated fashion. In a subsequent test phase, somatosensory event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to tactile stimulation of the left or right hand, to assess how tactile processing was affected by previous visuotactile experience during training. An enhanced somatosensory N140 component was elicited after synchronous, compared with uncorrelated, visuotactile training, irrespective of whether participants viewed a rubber hand or rubber object. This early effect of visuotactile integration on somatosensory processing is interpreted as a candidate electrophysiological correlate of the rubber hand illusion that is determined by temporal contiguity, but not by pre-existing body representations. ERPmodulations were observed beyond 200msec post-stimulus, suggesting an attentional bias induced by visuotactile training. These late modulations were absent when the stimulation of a rubber hand and the participant’s own hand was uncorrelated during training, suggesting that pre-existing body representations may affect later stages of tactile processing.

Visual enhancement of touch in spatial body representation

Perception of our own bodies is based on integration of visual and tactile inputs, notably by neurons in the brain’s parietal lobes. Here we report a behavioural consequence of this integration process. Simply viewing the arm can speed up reactions to an invisible tactile stimulus on the arm. We observed this visual enhancement effect only when a tactile task required spatial computation within a topographic map of the body surface and the judgements made were close to the limits of performance. This effect of viewing the body surface was absent or reversed in tasks that either did not require a spatial computation or in which judgements were well above performance limits. We consider possible mechanisms by which vision may influence tactile processing.

Peripersonal space: a multisensory interface for body-object interactions

Research in the last four decades has brought a considerable advance in our understanding of how the brain synthesizes information arising from different sensory modalities. Indeed, many cortical and subcortical areas, beyond those traditionally considered to be ‘associative,’ have been shown to be involved in multisensory interaction and integration (Ghazanfar and Schroeder 2006). Visuo-tactile interaction is of particular interest, because of the prominent role played by vision in guiding our actions and anticipating their tactile consequences in everyday life. In this chapter, we focus on the functional role that visuo-tactile processing may play in driving two types of body-object interactions: avoidance and approach. We will first review some basic features of visuo-tactile interactions, as revealed by electrophysiological studies in monkeys. These will prove to be relevant for interpreting the subsequent evidence arising from human studies. A crucial point that will be stressed is that these visuo-tactile mechanisms have not only sensory, but also motor-related activity that qualifies them as multisensory-motor interfaces. Evidence will then be presented for the existence of functionally homologous processing in the human brain, both from neuropsychological research in brain-damaged patients and in healthy participants. The final part of the chapter will focus on some recent studies in humans showing that the human motor system is provided with a multisensory interface that allows for continuous monitoring of the space near the body (i.e., peripersonal space). We further demonstrate that multisensory processing can be modulated on-line as a consequence of interacting with objects. This indicates that, far from being passive, the monitoring of peripersonal space is an active process subserving actions between our body and objects located in the space around us.