Semantic processing and individual suggestibility modulate motor preparation and perceived distance for looming sounds entering the peripersonal space.

Overview

1. Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
2. Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London,London, UK
3. Department of Industrial Systems Technology and Management, University of Padova,Vicenza, Italy

Abstract

Our brain maps the space immediately surrounding the body, the peripersonal space (PPS), to sharpen sensory-motor coordination whenever an object enters it. Within PPS, past research demonstrated how several factors influence motor readiness: from stimulus characteristics, such as body-object distance and stimulus semantics, to personality traits like anxiety. However, most paradigms infer PPS boundaries using tactile and visual stimuli, with auditory cues often playing an ancillary role, rather than directly measuring response modulation to stimuli entering the PPS. Here, we measured anticipatory postural adjustments, as direct physiological indices of motor planning, to examine whether semantic content and individual suggestibility modulate responses to looming sounds stopping within PPS. Thirty-three adults heard affective semantic sounds (positive - applause, negative - dentist drill) or neutral non-semantic (pink noise) sounds halting at five within-PPS distances while we recorded muscle activation timing, distance estimates, affective ratings, and sensory suggestibility. Motor responses were faster as sounds stopped nearer the body but systematically delayed and less precise for semantic sounds compared to non-semantic sounds, with higher suggestibility predicting longer and more variable latencies, particularly for non-semantic sounds. These findings demonstrate that semantic evaluation imposes measurable processing costs that systematically delay motor preparation and increase perceived distance. Individual suggestibility produces freeze-like response patterns that amplify motor uncertainty, specifically when semantic context is absent, revealing distinct cognitive and trait-based mechanisms that jointly regulate defensive behaviour within PPS.

Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-026-48067-4.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Code

The paper says that its authors' code is available on request: it was not published with the paper, so there is nothing to verify.

The paper's code and data availability statement is in the Data section.

Tracing map

A tracing map links a paper to the code its authors published: this paper has none (its code is available on request), so it has no map.

Data

No dataset and no data link were found in the paper.

Data availability

The datasets for the current study, as well as the analysis scripts, are available from the corresponding author on request.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Versions

The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.

Version 1, 29 September 2026: the first record

Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, issue, pages, dates, 3 authors, 12 keywords, 12 MeSH terms, 2 funders, 63 references.

Cite

This paper

Barumerli, R., Geronazzo, M., & Cesari, P. (2026). Semantic processing and individual suggestibility modulate motor preparation and perceived distance for looming sounds entering the peripersonal space. Scientific reports, 16(1), 18158. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48067-4

Similar papers

The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.

[1] doi:10.3758/s13414-026-03305-9

Modality-dependent bottom-up attention and eye gaze direction affect auditory spatial discrimination.

Journal: Attention, perception & psychophysics

In common: cognitive, 3 references

[2] doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003707 [code]

Behavioral engagement facilitates auditory neuron responses beyond their receptive fields.

Journal: PLoS biology

In common: 3 references

[3] doi:10.1038/s41597-026-08034-0 [code]

A standardized naturalistic audio stimulus dataset with unsupervised labeling.

Journal: Scientific data

In common: 3 references

[4] doi:10.1038/s41598-026-55029-3

Stimulus statistical context sensitivity of deviant responses to auditory intensity changes.

Journal: Scientific reports

In common: cognitive, 2 references

[5] doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.116829

Temporal dynamics of frontoparietal processing during personal space intrusion.

Journal: iScience

In common: 2 references

[6] doi:10.1038/s41467-026-75359-0 [code]

Neural mechanisms of time-forward predictions for naturalistic auditory tone sequences.

Journal: Nature communications

In common: cognitive, 1 reference

[7] doi:10.1038/s41467-026-75662-w [code]

Distinct Roles of Deep and Superficial Cortical Layers in Tone Prediction, Comparison, and Adaptation in Human Auditory Cortices.

Journal: Nature communications

In common: cognitive, 1 reference

[8] doi:10.1038/s42003-026-10265-1 [code]

The shape of attention reflects flexible filtering of natural speech modulations.

Journal: Communications biology

In common: cognitive, 1 reference

[9] doi:10.1002/acn3.70396 [code]

Memory and Resting-State Connectivity in Acute Transient Global Amnesia: A Case-Control fMRI Study.

Journal: Annals of clinical and translational neurology

In common: cognitive, 1 reference

[10] doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.122130

Auditory category encoding of human voice is distributed across superior temporal gyrus but converges with critical speech perception networks in posterior regions.

Journal: NeuroImage

In common: cognitive, 1 reference

Contribute

The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.

Request its removal

To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).

Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.

Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.

Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.