Contributions of visual and embodied expertise to body perception.

Recent research has demonstrated that our perception of the human body differs from that of inanimate objects. This study investigated whether the visual perception of the human body differs from that of other animate bodies and, if so, whether that difference could be attributed to visual experience and/or embodied experience. To dissociate differential effects of these two types of expertise, inversion effects (recognition of inverted stimuli is slower and less accurate than recognition of upright stimuli) were compared for two types of bodies in postures that varied in typicality: humans in human postures (human-typical), humans in dog postures (human-atypical), dogs in dog postures (dog-typical), and dogs in human postures (dog-atypical). Inversion disrupts global configural processing. Relative changes in the size and presence of inversion effects reflect changes in visual processing. Both visual and embodiment expertise predict larger inversion effects for human over dog postures because we see humans more and we have experience producing human postures. However, our design that crosses body type and typicality leads to distinct predictions for visual and embodied experience. Visual expertise predicts an interaction between typicality and orientation: greater inversion effects should be found for typical over atypical postures regardless of body type. Alternatively, embodiment expertise predicts a body, typicality, and orientation interaction: larger inversion effects should be found for all human postures but only for atypical dog postures because humans can map their bodily experience onto these postures. Accuracy data supported embodiment expertise with the three-way interaction. However, response-time data supported contributions of visual expertise with larger inversion effects for typical over atypical postures. Thus, both types of expertise affect the visual perception of bodies.

Walking reveals trunk orientation bias for visual attention.

Our trunks influence where we perform actions in space. Thus, trunk direction may define a region of spacethat is accorded special treatment by the attention system. We investigated conditions under which a trunk orientation bias for attention might be relevant for healthy adults. Three experiments compared visual detection performance for participants standing and walking on a treadmill. Together, the experiments disambiguate the relative contributions of motor activity, motor load, and cognitive load on trunk orientation biases. In Experiment 1, trunk orientation biases (i.e., faster target detection for targets in front of the body midline) were observed in both forward and sideways walking conditions, but not in standing conditions. In Experiment 2, we ruled out the notion that the trunk orientation bias arose from increased motor activity; in fact, the bias was greatest when participants walked at an unusually slow pace. In Experiment 3, we directly compared motor load with cognitive load in a dual-task paradigm; cognitive load influenced overall performance speed, but only motor load produced trunk orientationbias. These results suggest that a trunk orientation bias emerges during walking and motor load conditions.

Turning configural processing upside down: part and whole body postures.

Like faces, body postures are susceptible to an inversion effect in untrained viewers. The inversion effect may be indicative of configural processing, but what kind of configural processing is used for the recognition of body postures must be specified. The information available in the body stimulus was manipulated. The presence and magnitude of inversion effects were compared for body parts, scrambled bodies, and body halves relative to whole bodies and to corresponding conditions for faces and houses. Results suggest that configural body posture recognition relies on the structural hierarchy of body parts, not the parts themselves or a complete template match. Configural recognition of body postures based on information about the structural hierarchy of parts defines an important point on the configural processing continuum, between recognition based on first-order spatial relations and recognition based on holistic undifferentiated template matching.

Hands up: attentional prioritization of space near the hand.

This study explored whether hand location affected spatial attention. The authors used a visual covert-orienting paradigm to examine whether spatial attention mechanisms--location prioritization and shifting attention--were supported by bimodal, hand-centered representations of space. Placing 1 hand next to a target location, participants detected visual targets following highly predictive visual cues. There was no a priori reason for the hand to influence task performance unless hand presence influenced attention. Results showed that target detection near the hand was facilitated relative to detection away from the hand, regardless of cue validity. Similar facilitation was found with only proprioceptive or visual hand location information but not with arbitrary visual anchors or distant targets. Hand presence affected attentional prioritization of space, not the shifting of attention.

Trunk orientation induces neglect-like lateral biases in covert attention.

The purpose of this study was to resolve a paradox in the literature on the effects of body orientation on spatial attention. Neuropsychological studies have found that real or simulated trunk rotation relieves contralesional inattention in patients with unilateral neglect, suggesting that trunk orientation affects how attention is allocated to space. However in two previous studies, trunk orientation did not affect spatial attention in other populations. In this study we investigated the effects of trunk orientation on the performance of a covert attention task by neurologically intact adults. The covert attention task allowed the evaluation of the effects of trunk orientation on both the allocation of attention to space and the ability to shift that attention to new locations. As in previous research, trunk orientation did not affect participants' response times (RTs) to validly cued targets. However rotating participants' trunks to the left increased their RTs to invalidly cued targets on the right and decreased their RTs to invalidly cued targets on the left. These results indicate that trunk orientation induces directional biases in the ability to shift attention. Thus, for intact participants, trunk rotation created lateral biases in the covert attention task similar to those seen in neglect patients.