Dokunma ve görsel algı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: sosyal beyinde pareidolia algısı

Abstract

Amaç: İnsan algısı, farklı modalitelerin etkileşimine dayalı karmaşık bir sistemdir. Ancak yetişkinlerin sosyal dokunma algısının görsel algının sosyal boyutunu nasıl etkilediği belirsizdir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, sosyal beyinde sosyal dokunma algısı ile görsel algı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışma 802 sağlıklı katılımcı ile gerçekleştirildi. Üç faktörden oluşan Sosyal Dokunma testini ve Pareidolia testini içeren öz bildirim anketi kullanıldı. Pearson Korelasyon ve tek yönlü ANOVA analizi gerçekleştirildi. Bulgular: Yüzlere verilen tepki süresi ile kişisel beğenilen sosyal dokunma faktörü ve kişisel sosyal dokunma faktörü arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir negatif ilişki bulundu. Pareidoliaya verilen tepki süresi ile kişisel sosyal dokunma ve sosyal dokunma davranışı faktörleri arasında anlamlı negatif ilişki bulundu. Sonuç: Sonuçlarımıza göre, multimodel algı, sosyal beyinde çoklu heteromodal ilişkilendirme alanları ile eş zamanlı olarak aktive olmasını gerektirmektedir. Bulgularımız, Dorsal ve Ventral Dikkat Ağları ile Sosyal Beyin Ağı arasındaki etkileşimi yansıtabilir.

Keywords

• Sosyal dokunma algısı
• görsel algı
• pareidolia
• multimodel algı
• sosyal beyin

Examining the relationship between touch and visual perception: pareidolia perception in the social brain

Abstract

Purpose: Human perception is a complex system based on the interaction of different modalities. However, it is unclear how adults’ perception of social touch influences their social dimension of visual perception. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between social touch perception and visual perception in the social brain. Materials and methods: The survey study recruited 802 healthy participants. Thus, a self-report survey that included the Social Touch Questionnaire consisting of three factors and the pareidolia test were used. Pearson’s Correlation and one- way ANOVA was performed for analysis. Result: We display a statistically significant negative correlation between face reaction time, personal social touch factor, and liking personal social touch factor. An adverse important relationship emerged between pareidolia reaction time, liking of personal social touch, and social touch behavior factors. Conclusion: According to our results, multimodal perception necessitates the simultaneous activation of multiple heteromodal associations in the social brain. Our findings can be interpreted as an interaction between the Dorsal and Ventral Attention Networks and the Social Brain Network.

Keywords

• Social touch perception
• visual perception
• pareidolia
• multimodal perception
• social brain

References

1. 1. Bolognini N, Rossetti A, Fusaro M, Vallar G, Miniussi C. Sharing social touch in the primary somatosensory cortex. Curr Biol 2014;24:1513-1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.025
2. 2. Shimojo S, Simion C, Changizi MA. Gaze and preference-orienting behavior as a somatic precursor of preference decision. In: 1. Adams RB, Ambady N, Nakayama K, Shimojo S, editors. The Science of Social Vision. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011:151-163.
3. 3. Dionne JK, Meehan SK, Legon W, Staines WR. Crossmodal influences in somatosensory cortex: interaction of vision and touch. Hum Brain Mapp 2010;31:14-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20841
4. 4. Della Longa L, Filippetti ML, Dragovic D, Farroni T. Synchrony of caresses: does affective touch help infants to detect body-related visual–tactile synchrony? Front Psychol 2020;10:1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02944
5. 5. Akdeniz G. A validity and reliability study of pareidolia test. Ankara Med J 2018;18:375-381. https://doi.org/10.17098/amj.461661
6. 6. Palmer CJ, Clifford CWG. Face pareidolia recruits mechanisms for detecting human social attention. Psychol Sci 2020;31:1001-1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620924814
7. 7. Akdeniz G. Brain activity underlying face and face pareidolia processing: an ERP study. Neurol Sci 2020;41:1557-1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-019-04232-4
8. 8. Liu J, Li J, Feng L, Li L, Tian J, Lee K. Seeing Jesus in toast: neural and behavioral correlates of face pareidolia. Cortex 2014;53:60-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.013

9. 9. Wardle SG, Seymour K, Taubert J. Characterizing the response to face pareidolia in human category-selective visual cortex. Bio Rxiv 2017;233-387. https://doi.org/10.1101/233387
10. 10. Wardle SG, Taubert J, Teichmann L, Baker CI. Rapid and dynamic processing of face pareidolia in the human brain. Nat Commun 2020;11:4518. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18325-8
11. 11. Wilhelm FH, Kochar AS, Roth WT, Gross JJ. Social anxiety and response to touch: incongruence between self-evaluative and physiological reactions. Biol Psychol 2001;58:181-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/s03010511(01)00113-2
12. 12. Lapp HS, Croy I. Insights from the German version of the social touch questionnaire: how attitude towards social touch relates to symptoms of social anxiety. Neuroscience 2021;464:133-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.07.012
13. 13. Ceccato V, Langefors L, Näsman P. Young people’s victimization and safety perceptions along the trip. Nordic J Criminol 2021;22:106-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2021.1882744
14. 14. Harvey AP, Fuhrmeister ER, Cantrell ME, et al. Longitudinal monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on high-touch surfaces in a community setting. Environ Sci Technol Lett 2020;8:168-175. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.27.20220905
15. 15. Suvilehto JT, Glerean E, Dunbar RIM, Hari R, Nummenmaa L. Topography of social touching depends on emotional bonds between humans. PNAS USA 2015;112:13811-13816. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519231112
16. 16. Husseini AA, Shirzad MM, Çakar E, et al. A cross-cultural assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice on COVID-19 among people of Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkey. J Microbiol Infect Dis 2021;11:58-65. https://doi.org/10.5799/jmid.951484
17. 17. Nagy E, Farkas T, Guy F, Stafylarakis A. Effects of handshake duration on other nonverbal behavior. Percept Mot Skills 2020;127:52-74. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0031512519876743
18. 18. Wundt W. Introduction into psychology. Leipzig, Voigtländer 1911.
19. 19. Fraisse P. Perception and estimation of time. Annu Rev Psychol 1984;35:1-36. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.000245
20. 20. Odendaal JSJ, Meintjes RA. Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. Vet J 2003;165:296-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-0233(02)00237-x
21. 21. Lindgren L, Westling G, Brulin C, Lehtipalo S, Andersson M, Nyberg L. Pleasant human touch is represented in pregenual anterior cingulate cortex. Neuroimage 2012;59:3427-3432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.013
22. 22. Polunina AG, Bryun EA. Limbic system alterations in opioid addiction. In: Geary R.T. Limbic System: Anatomy, Functions and Disorders. Hauppauge NY: Nova Science Publishers; 2014:57-77.
23. 23. Heslin R, Nguyen TD, Nguyen ML. Meaning of touch: the case of touch from a stranger or same sex person. J Nonverbal Behavior 1983;7:147-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986945
24. 24. Webb A, Peck J. Individual differences in interpersonal touch: on the development, validation, and use of the “comfort with interpersonal touch” (CIT) scale. J Consumer Psychol 2015;25:60-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.07.002
25. 25. Jourard SM. An exploratory study of body‐accessibility 1. British J Soc Clin Psychol 1966;5:221-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1966.tb00978.x
26. 26. Dutton J, Johnson A, Hickson M. Touch revisited: observations and methodological recommendations. J Mass Commun Journalism 2017;7:5-7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7912.1000348
27. 27. Guillon Q, Rogé B, Afzali MH, Baduel S, Kruck J, Hadjikhani. Intact perception but abnormal orientation towards face-like objects in young children with ASD. Sci Rep 2016;6:22119. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22119
28. 28. Nava E, Etzi R, Gallace A, Macchi Cassia V. Socially-relevant visual stimulation modulates physiological response to affective touch in human infants. Neuroscience 2021;464:59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2020.07.007
29. 29. Göbel N, Möller JC, Hollenstein N, et al. Face perception and pareidolia production in patients with parkinson’s disease. Front Neurol 2021;12:669-691. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.669691
30. 30. Vossel S, Geng JJ, Fink GR. Dorsal and ventral attention systems: distinct neural circuits but collaborative roles. Neuroscientist 2014;20:150-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858413494269
31. 31. Blakemore SJ. The social brain in adolescence. Nat Rev Neurosci 2008;9:267-277. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2353