The effect of manipulability and religion on the multisensory integration of objects in peripersonal space

Abstract

In this study participants were required to respond to vibrotactile stimuli applied to the hand while ignoring visual distractors superimposed on pictures representing Christian, Hindu, or profane objects that were categorized as manipulable or non-manipulable. Overall, participants responded slower when the visual distractor appeared at an incongruent location with respect to the vibrotactile stimulus, which is known as the crossmodal congruency effect (i.e., CCE). The CCE was modulated by the type of object involved (i.e., Christian, Hindu, or Profane), the object manipulability (i.e., manipulable vs. non-manipulable) and the religious background of the participant (i.e., Christian, Hindu, or non-religious). The finding that both object manipulability, the religious significance of the object, and the religious background of the participant have a combined effect on multisensory integration suggests important interactions between low-level body-object integration and the symbolic extension of the self.

Keywords:

• Religious objects
• Extended self
• Manipulable objects
• Multisensory integration
• Crossmodal Congruency Task

Notes

1. ¹Manipulability is primarily defined in terms of the action associations of an object. Some objects are strongly associated with many different actions and are frequently interacted with (e.g., a cup), whereas other objects have less potential for bodily interaction (e.g., a bookend; for a similar distinction, see Rueschemeyer, Pfeiffer, & Bekkering, 2010). Thus, although some non-manipulable objects used in the present study can be grasped as well, these objects are less strongly associated with specific bodily actions than manipulable objects. The classification according to object manipulability is supported by the object rating data as well (see below), indicating that participants rated manipulable objects as easier to manipulate than non-manipulable objects.

2. ²This finding is reminiscent of studies showing faster processing of religious words when presented in the upper compared to the lower visual field (Meier, Hauser, Robinson, Friesen, & Schjeldahl, 2007)