Dissociating effect of upper limb non-use and overuse on space and body representations

Behavioral, Neural, and Computational Principles of Bodily Self-Consciousness

“…By presenting tactile target stimuli at different delays from sound onset (simulating different sound distances from the body), reaction times to tactile targets became faster (compared to unimodal tactile stimulation) once the sound entered the participants' PPS. This facilitation effect was not linearly proportional to the spatial position of the sound, but occurred for sounds within a limited distance from the body (i.e., 40-50 cm for the hand), beyond which no space-dependent modulation of reaction times was found (Bassolino et al, 2015;Canzoneri et al, 2013aCanzoneri et al, , 2013bSerino et al, 2015;Teneggi et al, 2013). These data show that multisensory integration of bodily signals not only is governed by the metric distance of external stimuli from the body, but also depends on a third constraint of BSC that is absent for non-bodily multisensory perception: PPS.…”

Peripersonal space boundaries around the lower limbs

“…As mentioned, most previous reports on PPS using behavioural paradigms have focused on the size of the peri-hand representation. This usually ranges between 30 and 50 cm from the hand (Canzoneri et al 2013a;Serino et al 2015;Kandula et al 2017), but can be extended using a tool (Cardinali et al 2009;Bassolino et al 2010;Canzoneri et al 2013b) or retracted after immobilizing the body part (Bassolino et al 2014) or following an amputation (Canzoneri et al 2013a). Therefore, how does the hand PPS representation compare to the lower body PPS representation?…”

Visual illusion of tool use recalibrates tactile perception

“…First, we analyzed the total percentage of responses (collapsing across stimulus levels) made by participants that tactile distances on the arm felt larger than on the head (i.e., “arm larger” responses). This is perhaps the most common method for identifying modulations in tactile distance perception (Bassolino, Finisguerra, Canzoneri, Serino, & Pozzo, 2015; Canzoneri et al, 2013; de Vignemont, Ehrsson, & Haggard, 2005; Tajadura-Jiménez et al, 2012; Taylor-Clarke et al, 2004). Second, we fit logistic functions to each participant’s pre- and post-tool use responses using a maximum-likelihood procedure (Wichmann & Hill, 2001).…”