Functional tool actions in near and far space affect the distribution of visual attention along the tool.

Researchers propose 2 opposing views regarding visuospatial attentional distributions of tool space. Tool-use in far space either (a) remaps peripersonal space leading to distributed attention along the tool, or (b) shifts attention to the tool's functional end. However, most studies employ only one type of functional tool action to support their view. This study assessed whether attentional distributions are explained by different tool action types performed in space relative to the body. In Experiment 1, participants used a curved tool to push objects in far space or pull objects from far-to-near space, n = 96. Visual attention (mean correct RT, d') was measured at three equidistant target locations (tool handle, middle shaft, functional end) in far space, before and after tool actions using a 50/50, go/no-go target discrimination task. In Experiment 2, push actions were confined to near space and pull actions to far space, n = 96. Regardless of pushing or pulling, tool actions in far space improved attention only at the tool's end. Pulling objects into near space distributed attentional facilitation along the tool's length. Thus, tool-use peripersonal space remapping and attentional shifts may be dependent on specific functional tool actions in near and far space. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Nonuniform Changes in the Distribution of Visual Attention from Visual Complexity and Action: A Driving Simulation Study.

Researchers acknowledge the interplay between action and attention, but typically consider action as a response to successful attentional selection or the correlation of performance on separate action and attention tasks. We investigated how concurrent action with spatial monitoring affects the distribution of attention across the visual field. We embedded a functional field of view (FFOV) paradigm with concurrent central object recognition and peripheral target localization tasks in a simulated driving environment. Peripheral targets varied across 20-60 deg eccentricity at 11 radial spokes. Three conditions assessed the effects of visual complexity and concurrent action on the size and shape of the FFOV: (1) with no background, (2) with driving background, and (3) with driving background and vehicle steering. The addition of visual complexity slowed task performance and reduced the FFOV size but did not change the baseline shape. In contrast, the addition of steering produced not only shrinkage of the FFOV, but also changes in the FFOV shape. Nonuniform performance decrements occurred in proximal regions used for the central task and for steering, independent of interference from context elements. Multifocal attention models should consider the role of action and account for nonhomogeneities in the distribution of attention.

Haptic over visual information in the distribution of visual attention after tool-use in near and far space.

Despite attentional prioritization for grasping space near the hands, tool-use appears to transfer attentional bias to the tool's end/functional part. The contributions of haptic and visual inputs to attentional distribution along a tool were investigated as a function of tool-use in near (Experiment 1) and far (Experiment 2) space. Visual attention was assessed with a 50/50, go/no-go, target discrimination task, while a tool was held next to targets appearing near the tool-occupied hand or tool-end. Target response times (RTs) and sensitivity (d-prime) were measured at target locations, before and after functional tool practice for three conditions: (1) open-tool: tool-end visible (visual + haptic inputs), (2) hidden-tool: tool-end visually obscured (haptic input only), and (3) short-tool: stick missing tool's length/end (control condition: hand occupied but no visual/haptic input). In near space, both open- and hidden-tool groups showed a tool-end, attentional bias (faster RTs toward tool-end) before practice; after practice, RTs near the hand improved. In far space, the open-tool group showed no bias before practice; after practice, target RTs near the tool-end improved. However, the hidden-tool group showed a consistent tool-end bias despite practice. Lack of short-tool group results suggested that hidden-tool group results were specific to haptic inputs. In conclusion, (1) allocation of visual attention along a tool due to tool practice differs in near and far space, and (2) visual attention is drawn toward the tool's end even when visually obscured, suggesting haptic input provides sufficient information for directing attention along the tool.

To the end! Distribution of attention along a tool in peri- and extrapersonal space.

This study investigated the distribution of visual attention along a handheld tool depending on functional tool practice and its position in peripersonal or extrapersonal space. We created a tool with two functional parts placed at the tool's middle and end. Participants held the tool over a display such that functional parts were aligned with stimuli for a 50/50, go/no-go, target detection task. In Experiment 1, two groups with no prior tool experience performed the task either in peripersonal (near the body; tool held horizontally) or extrapersonal space (beyond arms' reach; tool held straight). Faster response times (RTs) were found for targets at the tool's end and for the peripersonal space group. In Experiment 2, participants used the tool's middle part in a hockey-like game prior to the task to assess functional practice effects. Again, faster RTs were found for targets at the tool's end and in peripersonal space. However, a tool part × space interaction suggested that mid-tool practice reduced performance differences between tool parts but only in peripersonal space. Experiment 3 confirmed the interaction effect when mid-tool practice was constrained to only extrapersonal space. Results suggest that visual attention is naturally drawn to the tool's end but that functional tool use can redistribute attention when positioned in peripersonal space. In extrapersonal space, no change was found suggesting that the extension of peripersonal space is not uniform in regards to visual attention and that the visual attention component is perhaps dissociable from the remapping of spatial representation by tools.