Dissociating body representations in healthy individuals: Differential effects of a kinaesthetic illusion on perception and action

Kammers, Marjolein P.M.; Ham, Ineke J. M. van der; Dijkerman, H. Chris

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.04.009

Cited by 89 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such deficits provide a double dissociation between body representations underlying perception and action, and also suggest a specific cognitive function of organising individual body parts into a coherent whole. This distinction has also been found in healthy individuals: bodily illusions have different effects on perceptual and motor tasks (Kammers et al 2006;2009a). Here, however, we focus on two other distinctive features of body representations that have received much less attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…This illusion has been shown to affect the location of body parts through vibration of a tendon, which can be transferred easily to other body parts that are held with the illuded limb (de Vignemont et al 2005;Kammers et al 2006;Lackner 1988). Kammers and colleagues (2006) used this illusion to dissociate body representations in healthy individuals, and showed that the effect of this illusion is task dependent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Specificity and Coherence of Body Representations

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bodily illusions differently affect body representations underlying perception and action. We investigated whether this task-dependency is mediated by two dimensions of embodiment: the sense of agency and the sense of the body as a coherent whole. In Experiment 1 a video Rubber Hand Illusion (vRHI) was induced with either active or passive movement and proprioceptive biases were measured via active responses or perceptual judgments. The Rresults showed that firstly that the vRHI is largely perceptual because it affected passive perceptual localisation judgments, but did not affect the active pointing responses but only the passive perceptual localisation judgments. Secondly, within the perceptual responses there was revealed a congruence effect, such that perceptual biases were larger following passive induction. There was only a trend for thisthe converse effect for the pointing responses, whereas motor biases were larger following active induction. In Experiment 2, we used the traditional RHI to investigate the coherence of body representation by synchronous stimulation of either matching or mismatching fingers on the rubber hand and the participant's own hand. Stimulation of matching fingers induced a local proprioceptive bias for only the stimulated finger, but did not affect the perceived shape of the hand as a whole. In contrast, spatial mismatch eliminated the RHI entirely. The present results show: (1) that the sense of agency has specific effects, depending on whether we represent our body for perception or to guide action, and (2) representations of specific body parts can be altered without affecting perception of the spatial configuration of the body as a whole.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specificity and Coherence of Body Representations

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much recent research has focused on identifying dissociations between different body representations (e.g., Dijkerman & de Haan, 2007;Gallagher & Cole, 1995;Kammers, van der Ham, & Dijkerman, 2006;Paillard, 1999;Schwoebel & Coslett, 2005;Sirigu et al, 1991). This poses the problem of how many representations is too many.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than skin deep: Body representation beyond primary somatosensory cortex

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural circuits underlying initial sensory processing of somatic information are relatively well understood. In contrast, the processes that go beyond primary somatosensation to create more abstract representations related to the body are less clear. In this review, we focus on two classes of higher-order processing beyond somatosensation. Somatoperception refers to the process of perceiving the body itself, and particularly of ensuring somatic perceptual constancy.We review three key elements of somatoperception: (a) remapping information from the body surface into an egocentric reference frame (b) exteroceptive perception of objects in the external world through their contact with the body and (c) interoceptive percepts about the nature and state of the body itself. Somatorepresentation, in contrast, refers to the essentially cognitive process of constructing semantic knowledge and attitudes about the body, including: (d) lexicalsemantic knowledge about bodies generally and one's own body specifically, (e) configural knowledge about the structure of bodies, (f) emotions and attitudes directed towards one's own body, and (g) the link between physical body and psychological self. We review a wide range of neuropsychological, neuroimaging and neurophysiological data to explore the dissociation between these different aspects of higher somatosensory function.Body Beyond SI 3

show abstract

“…Empirical studies of both neurological patients (Rossetti, Rode, & Boisson, 1995;Paillard, 1999) and healthy participants (e.g. Kammers, van der Ham, & Dijkerman, 2006;Kammers, de Vignemont, Verhagen, & Dijkerman, 2009) have lent support to this distinction.…”

Section: Body Representations and Tool Embodimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tool morphology constrains the effects of tool use on body representations.

Miller¹,

Longo

Saygın

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

103

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What factors constrain whether tool use modulates the user's body representations? To date, studies on representational plasticity following tool use have primarily focused on the act of using the tool. Here, we investigated whether the tool's morphology also serves to constrain plasticity. In 2 experiments, we varied whether the tool was morphologically similar to a target body part (Experiment 1, hand; Experiment 2, arm). Participants judged the tactile distance between pairs of points applied to their tool-using target body surface and forehead (control surface) before and after tool use. We applied touch in 2 orientations, allowing us to quantify how tool use modulates the representation's shape. Significant representational plasticity in hand shape (increase in width, decrease in length) was found when the tool was morphologically similar to a hand (Experiment 1A), but not when the tool was arm-shaped (Experiment 1B). Conversely, significant representational plasticity was found on the arm when the tool was arm-shaped (Experiment 2B), but not when hand-shaped (Experiment 2A). Taken together, our results indicate that morphological similarity between the tool and the effector constrains tool-induced representational plasticity. The embodiment of tools may thus depend on a match-to-template process between tool morphology and representation of the body.

show abstract

Dissociating body representations in healthy individuals: Differential effects of a kinaesthetic illusion on perception and action

Cited by 89 publications

References 28 publications

Specificity and Coherence of Body Representations

Specificity and Coherence of Body Representations

More than skin deep: Body representation beyond primary somatosensory cortex

Tool morphology constrains the effects of tool use on body representations.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About