>> This report constitutes a critical expansion of a recent study on tool use (Carlson, Alvarez, Wu, & Verstraten, 2010), published in this journal. Carlson et al. explored the classic question of how, during manipulation, an external object may seem to become an extension of one’s body. They demonstrated that objects manipulated with the hand can become one with the body, but objects manipulated with a tool cannot. They interpreted this as evidence that such integration is limited to first-order extensions. However, close inspection of the experimental conditions reveals that Carlson et al. overlooked how dynamic manipulation of an object affects the prehensile system. They used just one tool: a pair of grippers fixed to, and supported by, a table. In this arrangement, the table absorbs most of the forces associated with object manipulation. By contrast, when a freely maneuverable handheld tool is used, the forces are transmitted through the tool and interact with the arm and body, much as they do during direct manual manipulation. The notion that, without vision, object properties such as the length of a handheld rod can be perceived during dynamic manipulation has been well established. This system of touch perception is known as dynamic touch— perception based on information from effort-related muscle and tendon deformations (Carello & Turvey, 2000; Gibson, 1966; Turvey, 1996; Turvey & Carello, 2011). However, little is known about the perception of a target object when it is manipulated with a handheld tool. We concluded that the approach used by Carlson et al. would be a useful way to test such perception empirically, and we extended their conditions to include one with a freely maneuverable tool. Moreover, we predicted that the target object would be perceived with and without a tool, but only when the prehensile limb was maneuvering freely.
[1]
J. G. Wallace,et al.
Changes in the Size and Shape of Visual After-Images Observed in Complete Darkness during Changes of Position in Space
,
1959
.
[2]
M T Turvey,et al.
Obtaining information by dynamic (effortful) touching
,
2011,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
[3]
Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.
Being in the dark about your hand: Resolution of visuo-proprioceptive conflict by disowning visible limbs
,
2009,
Neuropsychologia.
[4]
M. Tanaka,et al.
Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones.
,
1996,
Neuroreport.
[5]
Thomas A Carlson,et al.
Rapid Assimilation of External Objects Into the Body Schema
,
2010,
Psychological science.
[6]
M. Turvey.
Dynamic touch.
,
1996,
The American psychologist.
[7]
Michael T. Turvey,et al.
Rotational Invariants and Dynamic Touch
,
2003
.
[8]
P. Davies,et al.
Effects of Movements upon the Appearance and Duration of a Prolonged Visual Afterimage: 1. Changes Arising from the Movement of a Portion of the Body Incorporated in the Afterimaged Scene
,
1973
.