Unitary haptic perception: integrating moving tactile inputs from anatomically adjacent and non-adjacent digits

How do we achieve unitary perception of an object when it touches two parts of the sensory epithelium that are not contiguous? We investigated this problem with a simple psychophysical task, which we then used in an fMRI experiment. Two wooden rods were moved over two digits positioned to be spatially adjacent. The digits were either from one foot (or hand) or one digit was from either foot (or hand). When the rods were moving in phase, one object was reliably perceived. By contrast, when the rods were moving out of phase, two objects were reliably perceived. fMRI revealed four cortical areas where activity was higher when the moving rods were perceived as one object relative to when they were perceived as two separate objects. Areas in the right inferior parietal lobule, the left inferior temporal sulcus and the left middle frontal gyrus were activated for this contrast regardless of the anatomical configuration of the stimulated sensory epithelia. By contrast, the left intraparietal sulcus was activated specifically when integration across the midline was required, irrespective of whether the stimulation was applied to the hands or feet. These results reveal a network of brain areas involved in generating a unified percept of the presence of an object that comes into contact with different parts of the body surface.

[1]  L. Krubitzer,et al.  Evidence for interhemispheric processing of inputs from the hands in human S2 and PV. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  George Adelman,et al.  Encyclopedia of neuroscience , 2004 .

[3]  J. Schmahmann Disorders of the cerebellum: ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. , 2004, The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

[4]  Richard lvry,et al.  Cerebellar timing systems. , 1997 .

[5]  Richard J. Caselli,et al.  The nature of tactile agnosia: A case study , 1994, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  Paul C Fletcher,et al.  Does the brain have a baseline? Why we should be resisting a rest. , 2007, NeuroImage.

[7]  J. Duhamel,et al.  Saccadic Target Selection Deficits after Lateral Intraparietal Area Inactivation in Monkeys , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  J. Hyvärinen Posterior parietal lobe of the primate brain. , 1982, Physiological reviews.

[9]  A. Iriki,et al.  Bilateral hand representation in the postcentral somatosensory cortex , 1994, Nature.

[10]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  A general mechanism for perceptual decision-making in the human brain , 2004, Nature.

[11]  M J Farah,et al.  Tactile agnosia. Underlying impairment and implications for normal tactile object recognition. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[12]  M. Critchley The parietal lobes , 1966 .

[13]  T. Hendler,et al.  Convergence of visual and tactile shape processing in the human lateral occipital complex. , 2002, Cerebral cortex.

[14]  J. Bower,et al.  Cerebellum Implicated in Sensory Acquisition and Discrimination Rather Than Motor Control , 1996, Science.

[15]  O J Braddick,et al.  Low-level and high-level processes in apparent motion. , 1980, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[16]  John C Gore,et al.  The role of the parietal cortex in visual feature binding , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Eiichi Naito,et al.  Moving tactile stimuli of fingers are integrated in the intraparietal and inferior parietal cortices , 2003, Neuroreport.

[18]  G. Werner,et al.  Symmetry and connectivity in the map of the body surface in somatosensory area II of primates. , 1969, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  G. Vallar,et al.  Spatial frames of reference and somatosensory processing: a neuropsychological perspective. , 1997, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[20]  R. Ivry Cerebellar timing systems. , 1997, International review of neurobiology.