A Lifespan View on Modulation of Peripersonal and Extrapersonal Reach Space via Tool Use
This study examined lifespan characteristics associated with tool use in the modulation of peripersonal and extrapersonal space. Three age groups: Children (7-12 years), Young Adults (19-23 years), and Older Adults (65-92 years) were presented with two experiments using an estimation of reach paradigm involving arm and tool conditions and a switch-block of the opposite condition. Experiment 1 tested Arm and Tool (20 cm length) estimation and switch-block conditions (from Arm to Tool and Tool to Arm) and found a significant effect for Age and Condition (ps <.05). Post-hoc analysis for Age indicated that children were significantly less accurate than young and older adults. Analysis for condition revealed significant differences for the Arm Switch-Block condition (Retraction) when compared to Tool and Arm estimations. Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment 1 with the exception of using a 40 cm length tool. Results were analogous to those found in Experiment 1. Considered together, these results hint that: (1) the ability to be as accurate when estimating reach with a tool and arm is present across the lifespan, (2) development and decline of action representation follow distinct paths, and (3) retraction of space seems to be more difficult than extension.
CaÃ§ola, P., & Gabbard, C. (2012). Modulating peripersonal and extrapersonal reach space: A developmental perspective. Experimental Brain Research, 218(2), 321-330.
Berti, A., & Frassinetti, F. (2000). When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(3), 415-420.
Gamberini, L., Seraglia, B., & Priftis, K. (2008). Processing of peripersonal and extrapersonal space using tools: Evidence from visual line bisection in real and virtual environments. Neuropsychologia, 46(5), 1298-1304.
Holmes, N. P., Calvert, G. A., & Spence, C. (2004). Extending or projecting peripersonal space with tools? Multisensory interactions highlight only the distal and proximal ends of tools. Neuroscience Letters, 372(1-2), 62-67.
Longo, M. R., & Lourenco, S. F. (2006). On the nature of near space: Effects of tool use and the transition to far space. Neuropsychologia, 44(6), 977-981.
Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79-86.
Holmes, N. P. (2012). Does tool use extend peripersonal space? A review and re-analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 218(2), 273-82.
Gabbard, C., & CaÃ§ola, P. (2011). When estimating reachability in space, young children and the elderly are similar. Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 6(3), 7-13.
CaÃ§ola, P., Martinez, A., & Ray, C. (2013). The ability to modulate peripersonal and
extrapersonal reach space via tool use among the elderly. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 56(2), 383-388.
Coren, S. (1993). The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(1), 1-3.
Carello, C., Grosofsky, A., Reichel, F., Solomon, H. Y., & Turvey, M. T. (1989). Visually perceiving what is reachable. Ecological Psychology, 1(1), 27-54.
Sirigu, A., & Duhamel, J. R. (2001). Motor and visual imagery as two complementary but neurally dissociable mental processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(7), 910-919.
Stevens, J. A. (2005). Interference effects demonstrate distinct roles for visual and motor imagery during the mental representation of human action. Cognition, 95(3), 329-350.
Higuchi, T., Imanaka, K., & Patla, A. (2006). Action-oriented representation of peripersonal and extrapersonal space: Insights from manual and locomotor actions. Japanese Psychological Research, 48(3), 126-140.
Macuga, K. L., Papailiou, A. P., & Frey, S. H. (2012). Motor imagery of tool use: relationship to actual use and adherence to Fittsâ€™ law across tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 218(2), 169-79.
Lourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2009). The plasticity of near space: Evidence for contraction. Cognition, 112, 451â€“6.
Gabbard, C., CaÃ§ola, P., & Cordova, A. (2011). Is there an advanced aging effect on the ability to mentally represent action? Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 53, 206-209.
Rodgers, M. K., Sindone, J. A., & Moffat, S. D. (2012). Effects of age on navigation strategy. Neurobiology of Aging, 33(1), e15-22.
Molina, M., Tijus, C., & Jouen, F. (2008). The emergence of motor imagery in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(3), 196-209.
Mulder, T., Hochstenbach, J. B. H., Heuvelena, M. J. G., & Otter, A. R. (2008). Motor imagery: the relation between age and imagery capacity. Human Movement Science, 26, 203â€“211.
Personnier, P., Bally, Y., & Papaxanthis, C. (2010). Mentally represented motor actions in normal aging. III Electromyographic features of imagined arm movements. Behavioural Brain Research, 206, 184â€“190.
Saimpont, A., Mourey, F., Manckoundia, P., Pfitzenmeyer, P., & Pozzo, T. (2010). Aging effects on the mental simulation/planning of the rising from the floor sequence. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 51(3), e41-e45.
Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 58-65.
Authors must declare that the work submitted is their own and that copyright has not been breached in seeking its publication. If the manuscript includes work previously published elsewhere, it is the author(s) responsibility to obtain permission to use it and to indicate that such permission has been granted.
If your paper is accepted, the author identified as the formal corresponding author for the paper will receive an email requesting them to complete the license agreement on behalf of all authors on the paper.