A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception: Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception : Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials. / Christiansen, Jens H; Christensen, Jeppe Høy; Grünbaum, Thor; Kyllingsbæk, Søren.
I: PLOS ONE, Bind 9, Nr. 5, e94744, 2014, s. 1-14.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception
T2 - Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials
AU - Christiansen, Jens H
AU - Christensen, Jeppe Høy
AU - Grünbaum, Thor
AU - Kyllingsbæk, Søren
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Spatial features of an object can be specified using two different response types: either by use of symbols or motorically by directly acting upon the object. Is this response dichotomy reflected in a dual representation of the visual world: one for perception and one for action? Previously, symbolic and motoric responses, specifying location, has been shown to rely on a common representation. What about more elaborate features such as length and orientation? Here we show that when motoric and symbolic responses are made within the same trial, the probability of making the same symbolic and motoric response is well above chance for both length and orientation. This suggests that motoric and symbolic responses to length and orientation are driven by a common representation. We also show that, for both response types, the spatial features of an object are processed independently. This finding of matching object-processing characteristics is also in agreement with the idea of a common representation driving both response types.
AB - Spatial features of an object can be specified using two different response types: either by use of symbols or motorically by directly acting upon the object. Is this response dichotomy reflected in a dual representation of the visual world: one for perception and one for action? Previously, symbolic and motoric responses, specifying location, has been shown to rely on a common representation. What about more elaborate features such as length and orientation? Here we show that when motoric and symbolic responses are made within the same trial, the probability of making the same symbolic and motoric response is well above chance for both length and orientation. This suggests that motoric and symbolic responses to length and orientation are driven by a common representation. We also show that, for both response types, the spatial features of an object are processed independently. This finding of matching object-processing characteristics is also in agreement with the idea of a common representation driving both response types.
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0094744
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0094744
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 24788941
VL - 9
SP - 1
EP - 14
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 5
M1 - e94744
ER -
ID: 109435971