Corporeal awareness is a difficult concept which refers to perception, knowledge and evaluation of one's own body as well as of other bodies. We discuss here some controversies regarding the significance of the concepts of body schema and body image, as variously entertained by different authors, for the understanding of corporeal awareness, and consider some newly proposed alternatives. We describe some recent discoveries of cortical areas specialized for the processing of bodily forms and bodily actions, as revealed by neuroimaging, neurophysiological, and lesion studies. We further describe new empirical and theoretical evidence for the importance of interoception, in addition to exteroception and proprioception, for corporeal awareness, and discuss how itch, a typical interoceptive input, has been wrongly excluded from the classic concept of the proprioceptive-tactile body schema. Finally, we consider the role of the insular cortex as the terminal cortical station of interoception and other bodily signals, along with Craig's proposal that the human insular cortex sets our species apart from other species by supporting consciousness of the body and the self. We conclude that corporeal awareness depends on the spatiotemporally distributed activity of many bodies in the brain, none of which is isomorphic with the actual body.

No abstract

No abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging indicates that observation of the human body induces a selective activation of a lateral occipitotemporal cortical area called extrastriate body area (EBA). This area is responsive to static and moving images of the human body and parts of it, but it is insensitive to faces and stimulus categories unrelated to the human body. With event-related repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, we tested the possible causal relation between neural activity in EBA and visual processing of body-related, nonfacial stimuli. Facial and noncorporeal stimuli were used as a control. Interference with neural activity in EBA induced a clear impairment, consisting of a significant increase in discriminative reaction time, in the visual processing of body parts. The effect was selective for stimulus type, because it affected responses to nonfacial body stimuli but not to noncorporeal and facial stimuli, and for locus of stimulation, because the effect from the interfering stimulation of EBA was absent during a corresponding stimulation of primary visual cortex. The results provide strong evidence that neural activity in EBA is not only correlated with but also causally involved in the visual processing of the human body and its parts, except the face.

No abstract

In a simple reaction time (RT) task, normal observers responded faster to simultaneous visual and tactile stimuli than to single visual or tactile stimuli. RT to simultaneous visual and tactile stimuli was also faster than RT to simultaneous dual visual or tactile stimuli. The advantage for RT to combined visual-tactile stimuli over RT to the other types of stimulation could be accounted for by intersensory neural facilitation rather than by probability summation. The direction of gaze (and presumably of visual attention) to space regions near to or far from the site of tactile stimulation had no effect on tactile RT. However, RT to single or dual tactile stimuli was fastest when observers could see the sites of tactile stimulation on their hands both directly and through a mirror at the same time. All these effects can be ascribed to the convergence of tactile and visual inputs onto neural centers which contain flexible multimodal representations of body parts.

In cats with midsagittal section of the optic chiasm, some visual cortex neurons can be driven not only by the ipsilateral eye, through the direct geniculocortical pathways, but also by the contralateral eye, through the opposite visual cortex and corpus callosum. The receptive fields and the response characteristics observed upon stimulation of the contralateral eye are very similar to those observed upon stimulation of the ipsilateral eye; the two monocular receptive fields of a given cell lie in corresponding points of heteronymous halves of the visual field in close contact with the vertical meridian, thus adding in visual space and forming a binocular receptive area which crosses the vertical meridian and extends equally on either side of it.

No abstract