A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception: Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception : Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials. / Christiansen, Jens H; Christensen, Jeppe Høy; Grünbaum, Thor; Kyllingsbæk, Søren.

In: PLOS ONE, Vol. 9, No. 5, e94744, 2014, p. 1-14.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Christiansen, JH, Christensen, JH, Grünbaum, T & Kyllingsbæk, S 2014, 'A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception: Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials', PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 5, e94744, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094744

APA

Christiansen, J. H., Christensen, J. H., Grünbaum, T., & Kyllingsbæk, S. (2014). A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception: Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials. PLOS ONE, 9(5), 1-14. [e94744]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094744

Vancouver

Christiansen JH, Christensen JH, Grünbaum T, Kyllingsbæk S. A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception: Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(5):1-14. e94744. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094744

Author

Christiansen, Jens H ; Christensen, Jeppe Høy ; Grünbaum, Thor ; Kyllingsbæk, Søren. / A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception : Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials. In: PLOS ONE. 2014 ; Vol. 9, No. 5. pp. 1-14.

Bibtex

@article{d52265d7d5f144f389f266e1abf455ef,
title = "A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception: Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials",
abstract = "Spatial features of an object can be specified using two different response types: either by use of symbols or motorically by directly acting upon the object. Is this response dichotomy reflected in a dual representation of the visual world: one for perception and one for action? Previously, symbolic and motoric responses, specifying location, has been shown to rely on a common representation. What about more elaborate features such as length and orientation? Here we show that when motoric and symbolic responses are made within the same trial, the probability of making the same symbolic and motoric response is well above chance for both length and orientation. This suggests that motoric and symbolic responses to length and orientation are driven by a common representation. We also show that, for both response types, the spatial features of an object are processed independently. This finding of matching object-processing characteristics is also in agreement with the idea of a common representation driving both response types.",
author = "Christiansen, {Jens H} and Christensen, {Jeppe H{\o}y} and Thor Gr{\"u}nbaum and S{\o}ren Kyllingsb{\ae}k",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0094744",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "1--14",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Common Representation of Spatial Features Drives Action and Perception

T2 - Grasping and Judging Object Features within Trials

AU - Christiansen, Jens H

AU - Christensen, Jeppe Høy

AU - Grünbaum, Thor

AU - Kyllingsbæk, Søren

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Spatial features of an object can be specified using two different response types: either by use of symbols or motorically by directly acting upon the object. Is this response dichotomy reflected in a dual representation of the visual world: one for perception and one for action? Previously, symbolic and motoric responses, specifying location, has been shown to rely on a common representation. What about more elaborate features such as length and orientation? Here we show that when motoric and symbolic responses are made within the same trial, the probability of making the same symbolic and motoric response is well above chance for both length and orientation. This suggests that motoric and symbolic responses to length and orientation are driven by a common representation. We also show that, for both response types, the spatial features of an object are processed independently. This finding of matching object-processing characteristics is also in agreement with the idea of a common representation driving both response types.

AB - Spatial features of an object can be specified using two different response types: either by use of symbols or motorically by directly acting upon the object. Is this response dichotomy reflected in a dual representation of the visual world: one for perception and one for action? Previously, symbolic and motoric responses, specifying location, has been shown to rely on a common representation. What about more elaborate features such as length and orientation? Here we show that when motoric and symbolic responses are made within the same trial, the probability of making the same symbolic and motoric response is well above chance for both length and orientation. This suggests that motoric and symbolic responses to length and orientation are driven by a common representation. We also show that, for both response types, the spatial features of an object are processed independently. This finding of matching object-processing characteristics is also in agreement with the idea of a common representation driving both response types.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0094744

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0094744

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24788941

VL - 9

SP - 1

EP - 14

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e94744

ER -

ID: 109435971