Knowledge of the human body

Coslett, H. Branch; Saffran, Eleanor M.; Schwoebel, John

doi:10.1212/wnl.59.3.357

Cited by 109 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have reported selective sparing of lexical-semantic knowledge about bodies (e.g., Coslett et al, 2002;Shelton, Fouch, & Caramazza, 1998), providing clear doubledissociations between knowledge about bodies and other domains. Nevertheless semantic knowledge about the body may be unusually resilient to impairment (e.g., Capitani, Laiacona, Mahon, & Caramazza, 2003;Gainotti, 2004;Kemmerer & Tranel, 2008).…”

Section: Lexical-semantic Knowledge About Bodiesmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Coslett, Saffran, & Schwoebel, 2002). Indeed, several researchers have reported cases of patients with selective impairment (e.g., Dennis, 1976;Goodglass, Klein, Carey, & Jones, 1966;Laiacona, Allamono, Lorenzi, and Capitani, 2006;Suzuki, Yamadori, & Fujii, 1997) of lexicalsemantic knowledge related to the body following brain damage.…”

Section: Lexical-semantic Knowledge About Bodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Lexical-semantic Knowledge About Bodiesmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Lexical-semantic Knowledge About Bodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

More than skin deep: Body representation beyond primary somatosensory cortex

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clearly, probing a hypothetical neural differentiation between these components of the action semantic system is beyond the scope of our experiment and deserves further investigations. Likewise, we do not believe that these data are sufficient to ascertain the segregation of a dedicated action-semantic system according to the multiple semantic systems hypothesis, although numerous studies suggest that knowledge from different conceptual categories depends on partially segregated neural systems [e.g., Coslett et al, 2002;Martin et al, 1996;Perani et al, 1999;Silveri et al, 1997;Tranel et al, 1997;Warrington and McCarthy, 1987; for critical discussion see Phillips et al, 2002].…”

Section: Innervatory Patternsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Imaging a cognitive model of apraxia: The neural substrate of gesture‐specific cognitive processes

Peigneux

Linden

Garraux

et al. 2004

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The present study aimed to ascertain the neuroanatomical basis of an influential neuropsychological model for upper limb apraxia [Rothi LJ, et al. The Neuropsychology of Action. 1997. Hove, UK: Psychology Press]. Regional cerebral blood flow was measured in healthy volunteers using H 2 15O PET during performance of four tasks commonly used for testing upper limb apraxia, i.e., pantomime of familiar gestures on verbal command, imitation of familiar gestures, imitation of novel gestures, and an action-semantic task that consisted in matching objects for functional use. We also re-analysed data from a previous PET study in which we investigated the neural basis of the visual analysis of gestures. First, we found that two sets of discrete brain areas are predominantly engaged in the imitation of familiar and novel gestures, respectively. Segregated brain activation for novel gesture imitation concur with neuropsychological reports to support the hypothesis that knowledge about the organization of the human body mediates the transition from visual perception to motor execution when imitating novel gestures [Goldenberg Neuropsychologia 1995;33:63-72]. Second, conjunction analyses revealed distinctive neural bases for most of the gesture-specific cognitive processes proposed in this cognitive model of upper limb apraxia. However, a functional analysis of brain imaging data suggested that one single memory store may be used for "to-be-perceived" and "to-be-produced" gestural representations, departing from Rothi et al.'s proposal. Based on the above considerations, we suggest and discuss a revised model for upper limb apraxia that might best account for both brain imaging findings and neuropsychological dissociations reported in the apraxia literature.

show abstract

“…Interestingly, such deficits appear to be unrelated to a general deficit in spatial abilities or in semantic naming difficulties, as evidenced by a spared performance when animals or manmade object parts are used instead. Thereby, this patients' behavior stands in contrast with the difficulties experienced by patients with a specific loss of body semantics (Coslett, Saffran, & Schwoebel, 2002;Kemmerer & Tranel, 2008;Laiacona, Allamano, Lorenzi, & Capitani, 2006;Schwoebel, Buxbaum, & Coslett, 2004;Schwoebel & Coslett, 2005;Shelton, Fouch, & Caramazza, 1998;Suzuki, Yamadori, Fuji, & Abe, 1997). These patients are unable to understand the meaning of words referring to body parts and to relate a word referring to a body part to its referent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Based on these findings it has been suggested that body semantics, i.e. semantic knowledge of the human body, comprises a distinct conceptual category that can be selectively impaired or spared (Coslett et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relation between body semantics and spatial body representations

Elk

Blanke

2011

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study addressed the relation between body semantics (i.e. semantic knowledge about the human body) and spatial body representations, by presenting participants with word pairs, one below the other, referring to body parts. The spatial position of the word pairs could be congruent (e.g. EYE / MOUTH) or incongruent (MOUTH / EYE) with respect to the spatial position of the words' referents. In addition, the spatial distance between the words' referents was varied, resulting in word pairs referring to body parts that are close (e.g. EYE / MOUTH) or far in space (e.g. EYE / FOOT). A spatial congruency effect was observed when subjects made an iconicity judgment (Experiments 2 and 3) but not when making a semantic relatedness judgment (Experiment 1). In addition, when making a semantic relatedness judgment (Experiment 1) reaction times increased with increased distance between the body parts but when making an iconicity judgment (Experiments 2 and 3) reaction times decreased with increased distance. These findings suggest that the processing of body-semantics results in the activation of a detailed visuo-spatial body representation that is modulated by the specific task requirements. We discuss these new data with respect to theories of embodied cognition and body semantics.

show abstract

Knowledge of the human body

Cited by 109 publications

References 42 publications

More than skin deep: Body representation beyond primary somatosensory cortex

More than skin deep: Body representation beyond primary somatosensory cortex

Imaging a cognitive model of apraxia: The neural substrate of gesture‐specific cognitive processes

The relation between body semantics and spatial body representations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About