Holmes, Nicholas P., Spence, Charles, Hansen, Peter C., 1963-, Mackay, Clare E. and Calvert, Gemma. (2008) The multisensory attentional consequences of tool use : a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. PL o S One, Vol.3 (No.10). ISSN 1932-6203

Preview

PDF WRAP_Calvert_journal.pone.0003502.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (773Kb)

Abstract

Background: Tool use in humans requires that multisensory information is integrated across different locations, from objects seen to be distant from the hand, but felt indirectly at the hand via the tool. We tested the hypothesis that using a simple tool to perceive vibrotactile stimuli results in the enhanced processing of visual stimuli presented at the distal, functional part of the tool. Such a finding would be consistent with a shift of spatial attention to the location where the tool is used. Methodology/Principal Findings: We tested this hypothesis by scanning healthy human participants’ brains using functional magnetic resonance imaging, while they used a simple tool to discriminate between target vibrations, accompanied by congruent or incongruent visual distractors, on the same or opposite side to the tool. The attentional hypothesis was supported: BOLD response in occipital cortex, particularly in the right hemisphere lingual gyrus, varied significantly as a function of tool position, increasing contralaterally, and decreasing ipsilaterally to the tool. Furthermore, these modulations occurred despite the fact that participants were repeatedly instructed to ignore the visual stimuli, to respond only to the vibrotactile stimuli, and to maintain visual fixation centrally. In addition, the magnitude of multisensory (visual-vibrotactile) interactions in participants’ behavioural responses significantly predicted the BOLD response in occipital cortical areas that were also modulated as a function of both visual stimulus position and tool position. Conclusions/Significance: These results show that using a simple tool to locate and to perceive vibrotactile stimuli is accompanied by a shift of spatial attention to the location where the functional part of the tool is used, resulting in enhanced processing of visual stimuli at that location, and decreased processing at other locations. This was most clearly observed in the right hemisphere lingual gyrus. Such modulations of visual processing may reflect the functional importance of visuospatial information during human tool use.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology Q Science > QP Physiology
Divisions:	Faculty of Science > WMG (Formerly the Warwick Manufacturing Group)
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Tools, Perceptual-motor processes, Sensory stimulation
Journal or Publication Title:	PL o S One
Publisher:	Public Library of Science
ISSN:	1932-6203
Date:	29 October 2008
Volume:	Vol.3
Number:	No.10
Identification Number:	10.1371/journal.pone.0003502
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	Wellcome Trust (London, England), Great Britain. Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851
References:	1. Head H, Holmes HG (1911–1912) Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Brain 34: 102–254. 2. Johnson-Frey SH (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends Cogn Sci 8: 71–78. 3. Farne` A, Bonifazi S, La`davas E (2005) The role played by tool-use and toollength on the plastic elongation of peri-hand space: A single case study. Cogn Neuropsychol 22: 408–418. 4. Farne` A, Iriki A, La`davas E (2005) Shaping multisensory action-space with tools: Evidence from patients with cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia 43: 238–248. 5. Farne` A, La`davas E (2000) Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. NeuroReport 11: 1645–1649. 6. Farne` A, Serino A, La`davas E (2007) Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space following tool-use: determinants and spatial characteristics revealed through cross-modal extinction. Cortex 43: 436–443. 7. Holmes NP, Calvert GA, Spence C (2004) Extending or projecting peripersonal space with tools? Multisensory interactions highlight only the distal and proximal ends of tools. Neurosci Lett 372: 62–67. 8. Holmes NP, Calvert GA, Spence C (2007) Tool use changes multisensory interactions in seconds: Evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. Exp Brain Res 183: 465–476. 9. Holmes NP, Sanabria D, Calvert GA, Spence C (2007) Tool-use: Capturing multisensory spatial attention or extending multisensory peripersonal space? Cortex 43: 469–489. 10. Maravita A, Iriki A (2004) Tools for the body (schema). Trends Cogn Sci 8: 79–86. 11. Bonifazi S, Farne` A, Rinaldesi ML, La`davas E (2007) Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space through tool-use: Spatial extension or shift of the multisensory area? J Neuropsychol 1: 101–114. 12. Maravita A, Spence C, Kennett S, Driver J (2002) Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition 83: 25–34. 13. Forti S, Humphreys GW (2004) Visuomotor cuing through tool use in unilateral visual neglect. J Gen Psychol 131: 379–410. 14. Maravita A, Husain M, Clarke K, Driver J (2001) Reaching with a tool extends visual-tactile interactions into far space: Evidence from cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia 39: 580–585. 15. Berti A, Frassinetti F (2000) When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. J Cogn Neurosci 12: 415–420. 16. Longo M, Lourenco S (2006) On the nature of near space: Effects of tool use and the transition to far space. Neuropsychologia 44: 977–981. 17. Yamamoto S, Kitazawa S (2001) Sensation at the tips of invisible tools. Nature Neurosci 4: 979–980. 18. Spence C, Pavani F, Maravita A, Holmes N (2004) Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuotactile peripersonal space in humans: Evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. J Physiol Paris 98: 171–189. 19. Spence C, Pavani F, Maravita A, Holmes NP (2008) Multisensory interactions. In Lin MC, Otaduy MA, eds. Haptic rendering: Foundations, algorithms, and applications. Wellesley, MA: AK Peters. pp 21–52. 20. Holmes NP, Sanabria D, Calvert GA, Spence C (2006) Multisensory interactions follow the hands across the midline: Evidence from a non-spatial visual-tactile congruency task. Brain Res 1077: 108–115. 21. Pinsk MA, Doniger GM, Kastner S (2004) Push-pull mechanism of selective attention in human extrastriate cortex. J Neurophysiol 92: 622–629. 22. Schwartz S, Vuilleumier P, Hutton C, Maravita A, Dolan RJ, Driver J (2005) Attentional load and sensory competition in human vision: Modulation of fMRI responses by load at fixation during task-irrelevant stimulation in the peripheral visual field. Cereb Cortex 15: 770–786. 23. Corbetta M, Miezen FM, Dobmeyer S, Shulman GL, Petersen SE (1990) Attentional modulation of neural processing of shape, color, and velocity in humans. Science 248: 1556–1559. 24. Hadjikhani N, Liu AK, Dale AM, Cavanagh P, Tootell RBH (1998) Retinotopy and color sensitivity in human visual cortical area V8. Nature Neurosci 1: 235–241. 25. Tootell RB, Hadjikhani NK, Hall EK, Marrett S, Vanduffel W, et al. (1998) The retinotopy of visual spatial attention. Neuron 21: 1409–1422. 26. Vandenberghe R, Duncan J, Dupont P, Ward R, Poline J-B, et al. (1997) Attention to one or two features in left or right visual field: A positron emission tomography study. J Neurosci 17: 3739–3750. 27. Beauchamp MS (2005) Statistical criteria in fMRI studies of multisensory integration. Neuroinformatics 3: 93–113. 28. Martı´nez A, Anllo-Vento L, Sereno MI, Frank LR, Buxton RB, et al. (1999) Involvement of striate and extrastriate visual cortical areas in spatial attention. Nature Neurosci 2: 364–369. 29. Tanabe HC, Kato M, Miyauchi S, Hayashi S, Yanagida T (2005) The sensorimotor transformation of cross-modal spatial information in the anterior intraparietal sulcus as revealed by functional MRI. Cogn Brain Res 22: 385–396. 30. Macaluso E, Frith CD, Driver J (2005) Multisensory stimulation with or without saccades: fMRI evidence for crossmodal effects on sensory-specific cortices that reflect multisensory location-congruence rather than task-relevance. Neuro- Image 26: 414–425. 31. Eickhoff SB, Stephan KE, Mohlberg H, Grefkes C, Fink GR, et al. (2005) A new SPM toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data. NeuroImage 25: 1325–1335. 32. Macaluso E, Driver J, Frith CD (2003) Multimodal spatial representations engaged in human parietal cortex during both saccadic and manual spatial orienting. Curr Biol 13: 990–999. 33. Calvert GA, Campbell R, Brammer MJ (2000) Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging of crossmodal binding in the human heteromodal cortex. Curr Biol 10: 649–657. 34. Mendola JS, Dale AM, Fischl B, Liu AK, Tootell RBH (1999) The representation of illusory and real contours in human cortical visual areas revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci 19: 8560–8572. 35. Nachev P (2006) Cognition and medial frontal cortex in health and disease. Curr Opin Neurol 19: 586–592. 36. Rushworth MFS, Walton ME, Kennerley SW, Bannerman DM (2004) Action sets and decisions in the medial frontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 8: 410–417. 37. Macaluso E, Frith CD, Driver J (2000) Selective spatial attention in vision and touch: unimodal and multimodal mechanisms revealed by PET. J Neurophysiol 83: 3062–3075. 38. Macaluso E, Frith CD, Driver J (2002) Supramodal effects of covert spatial orienting triggered by visual or tactile events. J Cogn Neurosci 14: 389–401. 39. Macaluso E, Eimer M, Frith CD, Driver J (2003) Preparatory states in crossmodal spatial attention: Spatial specificity and possible control mechanisms. Exp Brain Res 149: 62–74. 40. Shomstein S, Yantis S (2006) Parietal cortex mediates voluntary control of spatial and nonspatial auditory attention. J Neurosci 26: 435–439. 41. James TW, Humphrey GK, Gati JS, Servos P, Menon RS, et al. (2002) Haptic study of three-dimensional objects activates extrastriate visual areas. Neuropsychologia 40: 1706–1714. 42. Amedi A, von Kriegstein K, van Atteveldt NM, Beauchamp MS, Naumer MJ (2005) Functional imaging of human crossmodal identification and object recognition. Exp Brain Res 166: 559–571. 43. Connolly JD, Goodale MA, Desouza JF, Menon RS, Vili TA (2000) A comparison of frontoparietal fMRI activation during anti-saccades and antipointing. J Neurophysiol 84: 1645–1655. 44. Lloyd DM, Morrison I, Roberts N (2006) Role for human posterior parietal cortex in visual processing of aversive objects in peripersonal space. J Neurophysiol 95: 205–214. 45. Makin TR, Holmes NP, Zohary E (2007) Is that near my hand? Multisensory representation of peripersonal space in human intraparietal sulcus. J Neurosci 27: 731–740. 46. Beck BB (1980) Animal tool behavior: The use and manufacture of tools by primates. New York: Garland Press. 47. Holmes NP, Spence C (2006) Beyond the body schema: Visual, prosthetic, and technological contributions to bodily perception and awareness. In Knoblich G, Thornton IM, Grosjean M, Shiffrar M, eds. Human body perception from the inside out. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 15–64. 48. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2: 175–220. 49. St.Amant R, Horton TE (2008) Revisiting the definition of tool use. Anim Behav 75: 1199–1208. 50. Hansen KA, David SV, Gallant JL (2004) Parametric reverse correlation reveals spatial linearity of retinotopic human V1 BOLD response. NeuroImage 23: 233–241. 51. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97–113. 52. Brisben AJ, Hsiao SS, Johnson KO (1999) Detection of vibration transmitted through an object grasped in the hand. J Neurophysiol 81: 1548–1558. 53. Johnson KO (2001) The roles and functions of cutaneous mechanoreceptors. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11: 455–461. 54. Jenkinson M, Bannister PR, Brady M, Smith SM (2002) Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. NeuroImage 17: 825–841. 55. Smith SM (2002) Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapping 17: 143–155. 56. Woolrich MW, Ripley BD, Brady M, Smith SM (2001) Temporal autocorrelation in univariate linear modeling of fMRI data. NeuroImage 14: 1370–1386. 57. Jenkinson M, Smith SM (2001) A global optimisation method for robust affine registration of brain images. Medical Image Analysis 5: 143–156. 58. Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Smith SM (2003) General multilevel linear modeling for group analysis in FMRI. NeuroImage 20: 1052–1063. 59. Woolrich MW, Behrens TEJ, Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Smith SM (2004) Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference. NeuroImage 21: 1732–1747.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/4439

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item