Allocentric visual cues influence mental transformation of bodies.

Identifying a human body stimulus involves mentally rotating an embodied spatial representation of one's body (motoric embodiment) and projecting it onto the stimulus (spatial embodiment). Interactions between these two processes (spatial and motoric embodiment) may thus reveal cues about the underlying reference frames. The allocentric visual reference frame, and hence the perceived orientation of the body relative to gravity, was modulated using the York Tumbling Room, a fully furnished cubic room with strong directional cues that can be rotated around a participant's roll axis. Sixteen participants were seated upright (relative to gravity) in the Tumbling Room and made judgments about body and hand stimuli that were presented in the frontal plane at orientations of 0°, 90°, 180° (upside down), or 270° relative to them. Body stimuli have an intrinsic visual polarity relative to the environment whereas hands do not. Simultaneously the room was oriented 0°, 90°, 180° (upside down), or 270° relative to gravity resulting in sixteen combinations of orientations. Body stimuli were more accurately identified when room and body stimuli were aligned. However, such congruency did not facilitate identifying hand stimuli. We conclude that static allocentric visual cues can affect embodiment and hence performance in an egocentric mental transformation task. Reaction times to identify either hands or bodies showed no dependence on room orientation.

[1]  C. Bockisch,et al.  Differential Effects of Visual Feedback on Subjective Visual Vertical Accuracy and Precision , 2012, PloS one.

[2]  W. Prinz,et al.  The imitative mind : development, evolution, and brain bases , 2002 .

[3]  Marjolein P. M. Kammers,et al.  What is embodiment? A psychometric approach , 2008, Cognition.

[4]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[5]  I P Howard,et al.  Visually-induced reorientation illusions as a function of age. , 2000, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[6]  Ian P. Howard,et al.  Human visual orientation , 1982 .

[7]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  The Role of the Dynamic Body Schema in Praxis: Evidence from Primary Progressive Apraxia , 2000, Brain and Cognition.

[8]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Neural correlates of two imagined egocentric transformations , 2007, NeuroImage.

[9]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see , 1998, Nature.

[10]  Catherine L. Reed,et al.  What is the body schema , 2002 .

[11]  L M Parsons,et al.  Imagined spatial transformation of one's body. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  D R Proffitt,et al.  The influence of spatial reference frames on imagined object- and viewer rotations. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[13]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Mental spatial transformations of objects and perspective , 2001, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[14]  M. Kozhevnikov,et al.  Perspective-Taking vs. Mental Rotation Transformations and How They Predict Spatial Navigation Performance. , 2006 .

[15]  Brice Isableu,et al.  Embodied spatial transformations: "body analogy" for the mental rotation of objects. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  F. Mast,et al.  Mental transformation abilities in patients with unilateral and bilateral vestibular loss , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Modulation of neural activity by angle of rotation during imagined spatial transformations , 2006, NeuroImage.

[18]  F. Mast,et al.  Imagined paralysis impairs embodied spatial transformations , 2011, Cognitive neuroscience.

[19]  I. Howard,et al.  Visually Induced Reorientation Illusions , 2001, Perception.

[20]  L. Harris,et al.  How different types of scenes affect the Subjective Visual Vertical (SVV) and the Perceptual Upright (PU) , 2010, Vision Research.

[21]  O. Blanke,et al.  Differential influence of hands posture on mental rotation of hands and feet in left and right handers , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  A. Borghi,et al.  Embodied cognition and beyond: Acting and sensing the body , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  O. Blanke,et al.  Neural Basis of Embodiment: Distinct Contributions of Temporoparietal Junction and Extrastriate Body Area , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  M. Hegarty,et al.  A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[25]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Two kinds of visual perspective taking , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  F. Mast,et al.  Balancing the mind: vestibular induced facilitation of egocentric mental transformations. , 2012, Experimental psychology.

[27]  Klaus Kessler,et al.  The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: Embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference , 2010, Cognition.

[28]  I. Howard,et al.  Effect of Field Size, Head Motion, and Rotational Velocity on Roll Vection and Illusory Self-Tilt in a Tumbling Room , 1999, Perception.

[29]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Transformations of visuospatial images. , 2005, Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews.

[30]  Dorita H. F. Chang,et al.  Frames of reference for biological motion and face perception. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[31]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  Linking Out-of-Body Experience and Self Processing to Mental Own-Body Imagery at the Temporoparietal Junction , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.