Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Martin H Fischer.
Number symbols are part of our everyday visual world. Here we show that merely looking at numbers causes a shift in covert attention to the left or right side, depending upon the number's magnitude. This observation implies obligatory activation of number meaning and signals a tight coupling of internal and external representations of space.
In the present experiment, the authors sought to differentiate between a distance and a grouping explanation for the symmetric versus asymmetric patterns of distractor interference in selective reaching. Participants (N = 16) pointed to a green target that appeared either with or without a red distractor. Target-distractor separation was manipulated within an array of 5 closely grouped stimulus boxes, and distractor interference (difference in performance between trials with and trials without a distractor) was measured in reaction time, movement time, percentage errors, and movement endpoints. Small distances (5 mm) between target and distractor yielded a symmetric pattern of interference, whereas large distances (20 mm) yielded an asymmetric pattern, with more interference from near than from far distractors. Those findings support the distance account of distractor interference and refute the grouping account.
To understand negative numbers, must we refer to positive number representations (the phylogenetic hypothesis), or do we acquire a negative mental number line (the ontogenetic hypothesis)? In the experiment reported here, participants made lateralized button responses to indicate the larger of two digits from the range -9 to 9. Digit pairs were displayed spatially congruent or incongruent with either a phylogenetic or an ontogenetic mental number line. The pattern of decision latencies suggests that negative numbers become associated with left space, thus supporting the ontogenetic view.
Little is known about our ability to predict the motor capacities of other people. This study explored how observers perceive the reaching range of another person by asking them to judge the reachability of a moving object. Experiments 1 and 2 found that observers overestimated the reaching ranges of both short and tall people. Estimates were larger when objects moved towards rather than away from the person. Experiment 3 showed that perceived reaching range depended on the observer's viewing perspective. Compared with previous findings, these results suggest that observers use different cognitive operations to mentally simulate actions for themselves vs. others. They also inform the current debate about motor imagery and action understanding.
To examine whether the motor inhibition of return (IOR) postulated by Taylor and Klein (1998, 2000) generalizes to manual guided movements or is restricted to saccadic responses, the following three experiments were conducted. The first experiment combined peripheral cues (which generate IOR) with four types of manual responses made to central targets (central arrow indicating the response location). The responses were made on a touch-screen and were the equivalent of either a detection keypress, a choice keypress, a detection-guided pointing movement, or a choice-guided pointing movement. No IOR was found for any of the responses. The second experiment replicated the main result under eye fixation control. In Experiment 3, peripheral cues and peripheral targets were used, and IOR was present in all responses. Overall, these finding suggest that motor-based IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. Implications for motor-based IOR and attention-based IOR are discussed.
To clarify the role of the fixation cue in inhibition of return (IOR), the present study compared four conditions: fixation cue immediately after the peripheral cue, in the middle of the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA), immediately before the onset of the target, or no fixation cue. With a 200-ms SOA, less IOR was found when the fixation cue was either absent or occurred immediately after the peripheral cue. No differences between the four conditions were found with 400-ms and 800-ms SOAs. These findings suggest that there is a brief period of time in which attention cannot be withdrawn from the peripherally cued location. Once attention has been withdrawn from the peripherally cued location, IOR can be found at short SOAs.
Students participated in 3 experiments investigating the use of environment- and action-centered reference frames in selective reaching. They pointed to a green target appearing either with or without a red distractor. Target-distractor distance was manipulated, and distractor interference (difference between distractor trials and no-distractor trials) was measured in reaction time, movement time, and movement endpoint. Target-distractor distance determined the dominant frame of reference. Small distances evoked an environment-centered framework that encoded targets within an external context. Large distances evoked an action-centered framework that encoded targets relative to the start position of the hand. Results support the hypothesis that the brain represents spatial information in multiple frames of reference, with the dominant frame of reference being dependent on the task demands.