4.6 Article

The shared numerical representation for action and perception develops independently from vision

期刊

CORTEX
卷 129, 期 -, 页码 436-445

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.05.004

关键词

Numerosity perception; Adaptation; Cross-modal perception; Blindness; External remapping

资金

  1. European Research Council [337573]
  2. Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research PRIN2017 programme [2017XBJN4F]
  3. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme ERC Advanced grant [832813]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Humans share with other animals a number sense, a system allowing a rapid and approximate estimate of the number of items in a scene. Recently, it has been shown that numerosity is shared between action and perception as the number of repetitions of self-produced actions affects the perceived numerosity of subsequent visual stimuli presented around the area where actions occurred. Here we investigate whether this interplay between action and perception for numerosity depends on visual input and visual experience. We measured the effects of adaptation to motor routines (finger tapping) on numerical estimates of auditory sequences in sighted and congenitally blind people. In both groups, our results show a consistent adaptation effect with relative under- or overestimation of perceived auditory numerosity following rapid or slow tapping adaptation, respectively. Moreover, adaptation occurred around the tapping area irrespective of the hand posture (crossed or uncrossed hands), indicating that motor adaptation was coded using external (not hand-centred) coordinates in both groups. Overall, these results support the existence of a generalized interaction between action and perception for numerosity that occurs in external space and manifests independently of visual input or even visual experience. (c) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据