↓ Skip to main content

Does tool use extend peripersonal space? A review and re-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
Title
Does tool use extend peripersonal space? A review and re-analysis
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00221-012-3042-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas P. Holmes

Abstract

The fascinating idea that tools become extensions of our body appears in artistic, literary, philosophical, and scientific works alike. In the last 15 years, this idea has been reframed into several related hypotheses, one of which states that tool use extends the neural representation of the multisensory space immediately surrounding the hands (variously termed peripersonal space, peri-hand space, peri-cutaneous space, action space, or near space). This and related hypotheses have been tested extensively in the cognitive neurosciences, with evidence from molecular, neurophysiological, neuroimaging, neuropsychological, and behavioural fields. Here, I briefly review the evidence for and against the hypothesis that tool use extends a neural representation of the space surrounding the hand, concentrating on neurophysiological, neuropsychological, and behavioural evidence. I then provide a re-analysis of data from six published and one unpublished experiments using the crossmodal congruency task to test this hypothesis. While the re-analysis broadly confirms the previously reported finding that tool use does not literally extend peripersonal space, the overall effect sizes are small and statistical power is low. I conclude by questioning whether the crossmodal congruency task can indeed be used to test the hypothesis that tool use modifies peripersonal space.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 4 2%
United States 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 187 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 25%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Master 25 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 43 21%
Unknown 34 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 92 45%
Neuroscience 23 11%
Computer Science 10 5%
Engineering 8 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 3%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 43 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2021.
All research outputs
#7,170,382
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#849
of 3,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,431
of 156,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.