• Treffer 1 von 1
Zurück zur Trefferliste

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

Zitieren Sie bitte immer diese 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.zeige mehrzeige weniger

Volltext Dateien herunterladen

Metadaten exportieren

Weitere Dienste

Teilen auf Twitter Suche bei Google Scholar Statistik - Anzahl der Zugriffe auf das Dokument
Metadaten
Autor(en): Marvin Liesner, Wladimir Kirsch, Roland Pfister, Wilfried Kunde
URN:urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-232781
Dokumentart:Artikel / Aufsatz in einer Zeitschrift
Institute der Universität:Fakultät für Humanwissenschaften (Philos., Psycho., Erziehungs- u. Gesell.-Wissensch.) / Institut für Psychologie
Sprache der Veröffentlichung:Englisch
Titel des übergeordneten Werkes / der Zeitschrift (Englisch):Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
ISSN:1943-3921
Erscheinungsjahr:2020
Band / Jahrgang:82
Seitenangabe:2531–2543
Originalveröffentlichung / Quelle: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
Allgemeine fachliche Zuordnung (DDC-Klassifikation):1 Philosophie und Psychologie / 15 Psychologie / 150 Psychologie
Freie Schlagwort(e):action–effect compatibility; agency; body ownership; ideomotor theory; proprioceptive drift; spatial binding; tool use
Datum der Freischaltung:02.06.2021
Lizenz (Deutsch):License LogoCC BY: Creative-Commons-Lizenz: Namensnennung 4.0 International