ArticlePloS one2015
How watching Pinocchio movies changes our subjective experience of extrapersonal space.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The influence of action on perception spans different effectors.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2023Review
- Functional Autonomy Affects Elderly Spatial Perception in Body-Centered Coordinates.Journal of aging research · 2020Article
- Pre-exposure to Ambiguous Faces Modulates Top-Down Control of Attentional Orienting to Counterpredictive Gaze Cues.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the inferior frontal cortex affects the "social scaling" of extrapersonal space depending on perspective-taking ability.Experimental brain research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The way we experience the space around us is highly subjective. It has been shown that motion potentialities that are intrinsic to our body influence our space categorization. Furthermore, we have recently demonstrated that in the extrapersonal space, our categorization also depends on the movement potential of other agents. When we have to categorize the space as "Near" or "Far" between a reference and a target, the space categorized as "Near" is wider if the reference corresponds to a biological agent that has the potential to walk, instead of a biological and non-biological agent that cannot walk. But what exactly drives this "Near space extension"? In the present paper, we tested whether abstract beliefs about the biological nature of an agent determine how we categorize the space between the agent and an object. Participants were asked to first read a Pinocchio story and watch a correspondent video in which Pinocchio acts like a real human, in order to become more transported into the initial story. Then they had to categorize the location ("Near" or "Far") of a target object located at progressively increasing or decreasing distances from a non-biological agent (i.e., a wooden dummy) and from a biological agent (i.e., a human-like avatar). The results indicate that being transported into the Pinocchio story, induces an equal "Near" space threshold with both the avatar and the wooden dummy as reference frames.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.