The relation between body semantics and spatial body representations

Abstract

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.

The standard posture of the hand.

“…This finding are in line with the idea of a standard representation, however physical constraints certainly forced the creation of such preferences. Our findings bring the idea of a standard posture to a different level that extends beyond the rigid anatomical or gravitational constraints (van Elk & Blanke, 2011; Yamamoto & Kitazawa, 2001; de Haan et al, 2012; Heed et al, 2012), pointing toward a stable standard hand posture that could potentially extend to other body parts. The standard posture would not be based on physical constraints (or not only at least), but on functional advantages.…”

Linguistic embodiment in typical and atypical anorexia nervosa: Evidence from an image‐word matching task

“…These integrative cognitive processes typically include two different body representations: body image and body schema (Longo et al., 2009). Body image is the perception of one's body—name, size, shape, and judgements—and contributes to defining identity/self and is made up of a series of cognitive, perceptual, affective and behavioural components (De Vignemont, 2010; Tsakiris et al., 2011; van Elk & Blanke, 2011). In contrast, body schema is predominantly somatosensory and is defined as “the awareness of a specific body part's movement” (Gadsby, 2017; Morasso & Mohan, 2021).…”

A Body Map Beyond Perceptual Experience

“…Previous studies interpreted the presence of an analogous distance effect when processing body parts stimuli, by tracing it back to mental imagery strategies (Van Elk & Blanke, 2011). That is, participants may scan a mental image of the body while performing the task, hence in turn relying on visuo-spatial experience with the body (e.g., Noordzij & Postma, 2005;Peviani et al, 2019;Struiksma et al, 2011).…”

“…Behavioral studies have reported a (spatial) distance effect when processing body part terms (e.g., Van Elk & Blanke, 2011), with pairs of words describing closer body parts (e.g., "nosemouth") being processed faster as compared with pairs of words describing body parts located farther apart (e.g., "ear -knee"). Evidence for a similar distance effect in body representation has been demonstrated when participants are asked to judge the relative distance between body parts (Smeets et al, 2009).…”

“…Furthermore, the measure indexing semantic processing used by Bracci and colleagues (2015) was reliant on the surface-level statistical structure of language (frequency of word co-occurrences, hence their contiguity) rather than on more comprehensive cues (the informativity of the relation between words, hence their contingency). Additionally, reanalyzing data collected by Jacobowitz (1973) and by Van Elk and Blanke (2011), it has also been demonstrated that body parts co-occurrence frequency predicts real body distance, with body parts co-occurring more frequently being rated as more similar and having lower physical distance (Tillman et al, 2012). These latter findings point towards the possibility of co-existence of two experiential traces supporting body representation, a visuo-spatial one and a linguistic one.…”