Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31628367›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

This is for you: Social modulations of proximal vs. distal space in collaborative interaction.

Roberta Rocca, Mikkel Wallentin, Cordula Vesper, Kristian Tylén

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. LearningPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Roberta RoccaDepartment of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. roberta.rocca@cc.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9017-8088
Mikkel WallentinDepartment of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Cordula VesperDepartment of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Kristian TylénDepartment of Linguistics, Cognitive Science and Semiotics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human spatial representations are shaped by affordances for action offered by the environment. A prototypical example is the organization of space into peripersonal (within reach) and extrapersonal (outside reach) regions, mirrored by proximal (this/here) and distal (that/there) linguistic expressions. The peri-/extrapersonal distinction has been widely investigated in individual contexts, but little is known about how spatial representations are modulated by interaction with other people. Is near/far coding of space dynamically adapted to the position of a partner when space, objects, and action goals are shared? Over two preregistered experiments based on a novel interactive paradigm, we show that, in individual and social contexts involving no direct collaboration, linguistic coding of locations as proximal or distal depends on their distance from the speaker's hand. In contrast, in the context of collaborative interactions involving turn-taking and role reversal, proximal space is shifted towards the partner, and linguistic coding of near space ('this' / 'here') is remapped onto the partner's action space.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInterpersonal RelationsPersonal SpaceAdolescentAdultFemaleFunctional LateralityHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsSpace PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31628367
PMCPMC6802403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.