Limits...
The Remapping of Time by Active Tool-Use.

Anelli F, Candini M, Cappelletti M, Oliveri M, Frassinetti F - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: The remapping was not found when a passive tool-training was executed (Experiment 2) or when the active tool-training was performed with participants' left hand (Experiment 3).Taken together, our findings reveal that time processing is based on action-driven multiple representations.The dynamic nature of these representations is demonstrated by the remapping of time, which is action- and effector-dependent.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

ABSTRACT
Multiple, action-based space representations are each based on the extent to which action is possible toward a specific sector of space, such as near/reachable and far/unreachable. Studies on tool-use revealed how the boundaries between these representations are dynamic. Space is not only multidimensional and dynamic, but it is also known for interacting with other dimensions of magnitude, such as time. However, whether time operates on similar action-driven multiple representations and whether it can be modulated by tool-use is yet unknown. To address these issues, healthy participants performed a time bisection task in two spatial positions (near and far space) before and after an active tool-use training, which consisted of performing goal-directed actions holding a tool with their right hand (Experiment 1). Before training, perceived stimuli duration was influenced by their spatial position defined by action. Hence, a dissociation emerged between near/reachable and far/unreachable space. Strikingly, this dissociation disappeared after the active tool-use training since temporal stimuli were now perceived as nearer. The remapping was not found when a passive tool-training was executed (Experiment 2) or when the active tool-training was performed with participants' left hand (Experiment 3). Moreover, no time remapping was observed following an equivalent active hand-training but without a tool (Experiment 4). Taken together, our findings reveal that time processing is based on action-driven multiple representations. The dynamic nature of these representations is demonstrated by the remapping of time, which is action- and effector-dependent.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Interval effect.Values are in ms and error bars depicted SEM. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < .05).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4696728&req=5

pone.0146175.g002: Interval effect.Values are in ms and error bars depicted SEM. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < .05).

Mentions: The main effect of Space was significant [F(1,21) = 15.56, η2p = .43, p < .001], because participants showed a rightward deviation when they bisected temporal intervals in far (1005 ms) compared with near space (966 ms). Interval was also significant [F(4,84) = 112.47, η2p = .84, p < .001], because all intervals differed significantly from each other (veridical durations: 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2400 ms; estimated half durations: 811, 903, 982, 1073, 1158 ms, respectively; post-hoc tests p < .001 for all comparisons), (Fig 2). Importantly, the interaction between Session and Space was also significant [F(1,21) = 9.76, η2p = .32, p < .01], because in the pre-training session participants showed a significant leftward bias when they bisected temporal intervals in near (964 ms) compared to far condition (1031 ms, p < .001). By contrast, no difference between near and far condition was observed in temporal bisection after tool-training (968 vs. 980 ms, respectively, p = .35). Crucially to our aim, when pre- and post-training sessions were directly compared, far conditions significantly differed from each other (p < .001), whereas near conditions did not (p = .75). However, no significant differences emerged between near space in the pre-training session and far space in the post-training session (p = .42), (Fig 3A). There were no other significant effects or interactions (all ps>.11).


The Remapping of Time by Active Tool-Use.

Anelli F, Candini M, Cappelletti M, Oliveri M, Frassinetti F - PLoS ONE (2015)

Interval effect.Values are in ms and error bars depicted SEM. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < .05).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4696728&req=5

pone.0146175.g002: Interval effect.Values are in ms and error bars depicted SEM. Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < .05).
Mentions: The main effect of Space was significant [F(1,21) = 15.56, η2p = .43, p < .001], because participants showed a rightward deviation when they bisected temporal intervals in far (1005 ms) compared with near space (966 ms). Interval was also significant [F(4,84) = 112.47, η2p = .84, p < .001], because all intervals differed significantly from each other (veridical durations: 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2400 ms; estimated half durations: 811, 903, 982, 1073, 1158 ms, respectively; post-hoc tests p < .001 for all comparisons), (Fig 2). Importantly, the interaction between Session and Space was also significant [F(1,21) = 9.76, η2p = .32, p < .01], because in the pre-training session participants showed a significant leftward bias when they bisected temporal intervals in near (964 ms) compared to far condition (1031 ms, p < .001). By contrast, no difference between near and far condition was observed in temporal bisection after tool-training (968 vs. 980 ms, respectively, p = .35). Crucially to our aim, when pre- and post-training sessions were directly compared, far conditions significantly differed from each other (p < .001), whereas near conditions did not (p = .75). However, no significant differences emerged between near space in the pre-training session and far space in the post-training session (p = .42), (Fig 3A). There were no other significant effects or interactions (all ps>.11).

Bottom Line: The remapping was not found when a passive tool-training was executed (Experiment 2) or when the active tool-training was performed with participants' left hand (Experiment 3).Taken together, our findings reveal that time processing is based on action-driven multiple representations.The dynamic nature of these representations is demonstrated by the remapping of time, which is action- and effector-dependent.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

ABSTRACT
Multiple, action-based space representations are each based on the extent to which action is possible toward a specific sector of space, such as near/reachable and far/unreachable. Studies on tool-use revealed how the boundaries between these representations are dynamic. Space is not only multidimensional and dynamic, but it is also known for interacting with other dimensions of magnitude, such as time. However, whether time operates on similar action-driven multiple representations and whether it can be modulated by tool-use is yet unknown. To address these issues, healthy participants performed a time bisection task in two spatial positions (near and far space) before and after an active tool-use training, which consisted of performing goal-directed actions holding a tool with their right hand (Experiment 1). Before training, perceived stimuli duration was influenced by their spatial position defined by action. Hence, a dissociation emerged between near/reachable and far/unreachable space. Strikingly, this dissociation disappeared after the active tool-use training since temporal stimuli were now perceived as nearer. The remapping was not found when a passive tool-training was executed (Experiment 2) or when the active tool-training was performed with participants' left hand (Experiment 3). Moreover, no time remapping was observed following an equivalent active hand-training but without a tool (Experiment 4). Taken together, our findings reveal that time processing is based on action-driven multiple representations. The dynamic nature of these representations is demonstrated by the remapping of time, which is action- and effector-dependent.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus