Search

The authors regret that there was an error on page 12, Fig. 4, Panel B of our manuscript. Panel B should have had the outlier study, Hreha et al. (2018), excluded. The data point for this study has been excluded, but this exclusion was not reflected in the study labels. Instead, the label for the study by Nys et al. (2008) was mistakenly omitted and the data points were improperly aligned with their labels. We would like to provide Fig. 4. Panel B with the corrected labels below.[Formula presented] The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The error has no bearing on the results or conclusions of the study.

Touch is important for many aspects of our daily activities. One of the most important tactile characteristics is its perceived intensity. However, quantifying the intensity of perceived tactile stimulation is not always possible using overt responses. Here, we show that pupil responses can objectively index the intensity of tactile stimulation in the absence of overt participant responses. In Experiment 1 (n = 32), we stimulated three reportedly differentially sensitive body locations (finger, forearm, and calf) with a single tap of a tactor while tracking pupil responses. Tactile stimulation resulted in greater pupil dilation than a baseline without stimulation. Furthermore, pupils dilated more for the more sensitive location (finger) than for the less sensitive location (forearm and calf). In Experiment 2 (n = 20) we extended these findings by manipulating the intensity of the stimulation with three different intensities, here a short vibration, always at the little finger. Again, pupils dilated more when being stimulated at higher intensities as compared to lower intensities. In summary, pupils dilated more for more sensitive parts of the body at constant stimulation intensity and for more intense stimulation at constant location. Taken together, the results show that the intensity of perceived tactile stimulation can be objectively measured with pupil responses - and that such responses are a versatile marker for touch research. Our findings may pave the way for previously impossible objective tests of tactile sensitivity, for example in minimally conscious state patients.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a condition of chronic pain, predominantly affecting one limb. CRPS is characterised by motor changes including slowed or uncoordinated movements. Cognitive processes that drive movement planning and/or execution might contribute to these changes. We aimed to investigate the potential alterations to such cognitive mechanisms using an ‘object affordance’ paradigm. Object affordance refers to the observation that viewing an object modulates associated motor responses, presumably due to the automatic activation of a motor plan. We hypothesised that people with CRPS would show reduced object affordance effects for their affected compared to unaffected hand, and compared to pain-free controls. First, we validated an online object affordance task involving button press responses to everyday objects with handles, in pain-free participants (n = 63; Experiment 1). Object affordance was reflected by faster and more accurate responses when the object handle was aligned to the responding hand (“aligned”) compared to when the handle was aligned to the other hand (“non-aligned”). These results were similar for the online task as when administered in person. Second, in a case-control study, we administered the online object affordance task to people with CRPS predominantly affecting the upper limb (n = 25), and age-matched pain-free controls (n = 68; Experiment 2). People with CRPS responded faster and more accurately in the aligned versus non-aligned condition (ie, an object affordance effect), both for the affected and unaffected hands. There were no differences to pain-free participants. Therefore, object affordance effects were seen in people with CRPS, providing no evidence for altered motor planning. Perspective: This article presents research investigating cognitive processes related to motor planning in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). Using an online object affordance paradigm, validated in pain-free controls, the authors

OBJECTIVES: The 'attentional spotlight' can be adjusted depending on the task requirements, resulting in processing information at either the local or global level. Stroke can lead to local or global processing biases, or the inability to simultaneously attend both levels. In this study, we assessed the (1) prevalence of abnormal local and global biases following stroke, (2) differences between left- and right-sided brain damaged patients, and (3) relations between local and global interference, the ability to attend local and global levels simultaneously, and lateralized attention, search organization, search speed, visuo-construction, executive functioning, and verbal (working) memory.METHODS: Stroke patients admitted for inpatient rehabilitation completed directed (N = 192 total; N = 46 left-sided/N = 48 right-sided lesion) and divided (N = 258 total; N = 67 left-sided/N = 66 right-sided lesion) local-global processing tasks, as well as a conventional neuropsychological assessment. Processing biases and interference effects were separately computed for directed and divided tasks.RESULTS: On the local-global tasks, 7.8-10.9% of patients showed an abnormal local bias and 6.3-8.3% an abnormal global bias for directed attention, and 5.4-10.1% an abnormal local bias and 6.6-15.9% an abnormal global bias for divided attention. There was no significant difference between patients with left- and right-sided brain damage. There was a moderate positive relation between local interference and search speed, and a small positive relation between global interference and neglect.CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal local and global biases can occur after stroke and might relate to a range of cognitive functions. A specific bias might require a different approach in assessment, psycho-education, and treatment.

It has long been known that active adaptation to a shift of the visual field, caused by laterally-displacing prisms, induces short-term sensorimotor aftereffects. More recent evidence suggests that prism adaptation may also stimulate higher-level changes in spatial cognition, which can modify the spatial biases of healthy people. The first reported, and most replicated, higher-level aftereffect is a rightward shift in the point of subjective equality (PSE) for a perceptual bisection task (the landmark task), following adaptation to leftward prisms. A recent meta-analysis suggests that this visuospatial aftereffect should be robustly induced by an extended period of adaptation to strong leftward prisms (15°, ∼26.8 prism dioptres). However, we have been unable to replicate this effect, suggesting that the effect size estimated from prior literature might be over-optimistic. This Registered Report compared visuospatial aftereffects on the landmark task for a 15° leftward prism adaptation group (n = 102) against a sham-adaptation control group (n = 102). The effect size for the comparison was Cohen's d = .27, 95% CI [-.01, .55], which did not pass the criterion set for significance. A Bayesian analysis indicated that the data were more than 4.1 times as likely under the null than under an informed experimental hypothesis. Exploratory analyses showed no evidence for a rightward shift of landmark judgements in the prism group considered alone, and no relationship between sensorimotor and visuospatial aftereffects. We further found no support for previous suggestions that visuospatial aftereffects are modulated by a person's baseline bias (leftward or rightward) for the landmark task. Null findings are also presented for a preliminary group of 62 participants adapted to 15° leftward prisms, and an additional group of 29 participants adapted to 10° leftward prisms. We do not rule out the possibility that leftward prisms might induce higher-level visuospatial aftereffects

Previous research suggests that attention is drawn by self-related information. Three online experiments were conducted to investigate whether self-related stimuli alter visuospatial perceptual judgments. In a matching task, associations were learned between labels ('Yourself'/friend/stranger's name) paired with cues. Cues were coloured outlines (Experiment 1, N = 135), geometric shapes (Experiment 2, N = 102), or coloured gradients (Experiment 3, N = 110). Visuospatial perception bias was measured with a greyscales task. Cues were presented prior to, and/or alongside greyscales. We hypothesized there would be a bias towards the self-related cue. In all experiments, we found a self-related bias in the matching task. Furthermore, there was an overall leftward visuospatial perceptual bias (pseudoneglect). However, we found anecdotal to moderate evidence for the absence of an effect of self-related cues on visuospatial perception judgments. Although self-related stimuli influence how our attention is oriented to stimuli, attention mechanisms that influence perceptual judgements are seemingly not affected by a self-bias.