The limb-specific embodiment of a tool following experience

The present study was designed to investigate the incorporation of tools into the human body schema. Previous research on tool use suggests that through physical interaction with a tool, the representation of the body is adjusted to incorporate or “embody” the tool. The present experiment was conducted to test the limb-specific nature of tool embodiment. Participants were presented with images of a person holding a rake and executed hand- and foot-press responses to colored targets superimposed on the hand, foot, and rake of the image. This task was completed before and after moving a ball around a course with a hand-held rake. Consistent with previous research, a body-part compatibility effect emerged—response times (RTs) were shorter when the responding limb and target location were compatible (e.g., hand responses to targets on the hand) than when they were incompatible (e.g., hand responses to targets on the foot). Of greater theoretical relevance, hand RTs to targets presented on the hand were shorter than those to targets on the rake prior to experience, but were not different after completing the rake task. The post-experience similarity in hand RTs emerged because there was a significant reduction in RTs to targets on the rake following use. There was no significant pre-/post-experience change in hand RTs to targets on the hand or, importantly, for any response executed by the foot. These results provide new evidence that a tool is embodied in a limb-specific manner and is represented within the body schema as if it was an extension of the limb.

[1]  Gereon R. Fink,et al.  Imagined tool-use in near and far space modulates the extra-striate body area , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  Jefferson D. Grubb,et al.  Hands up: attentional prioritization of space near the hand. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Hiroshi Imamizu,et al.  Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool , 2000, Nature.

[4]  C. Gross,et al.  Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. , 1994, Science.

[5]  A Farnè,et al.  Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space through tool-use: spatial extension or shift of the multi-sensory area. , 2007, Journal of neuropsychology.

[6]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  The organization of the cortical motor system: new concepts. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[7]  Paul Clifton,et al.  Reach across the boundary: evidence of physical tool appropriation following virtual practice , 2013, TEI '13.

[8]  C. Gross,et al.  A bimodal map of space: somatosensory receptive fields in the macaque putamen with corresponding visual receptive fields , 1993, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  P. Haggard,et al.  Shared representations in body perception. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[10]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  A Cortical Area Selective for Visual Processing of the Human Body , 2001, Science.

[11]  M. Goodale,et al.  Enhanced detection of visual targets on the hand and familiar tools , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  M. Tanaka,et al.  Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. , 1996, Neuroreport.

[13]  Antonino Vallesi,et al.  Erratum to ‘Horizontal and vertical Simon effect: different underlying mechanisms?’ [Cognition 96 (2005) B33–43]☆ , 2005, Cognition.

[14]  Caroline Catmur,et al.  Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Ilona M. Bloem,et al.  Intensive tool-practice and skillfulness facilitate the extension of body representations in humans , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  Paul E. Downing,et al.  Learning associations between action and perception: Effects of incompatible training on body part and spatial priming , 2011, Brain and Cognition.

[17]  A Farnè,et al.  Dynamic size‐change of hand peripersonal space following tool use , 2000, Neuroreport.

[18]  A. Maravita,et al.  Tools for the body (schema) , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  Jérémy Bourgeois,et al.  Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[20]  Paul E. Downing,et al.  Facilitation and interference in spatial and body reference frames , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  P. Downing,et al.  The neural basis of visual body perception , 2007, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[22]  A. Berti,et al.  When Far Becomes Near: Remapping of Space by Tool Use , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  Timothy N. Welsh,et al.  The personification of animals: Coding of human and nonhuman body parts based on posture and function , 2014, Cognition.

[24]  Antonino Vallesi,et al.  Horizontal and vertical Simon effect: different underlying mechanisms? , 2005, Cognition.

[25]  Elisabetta Làdavas,et al.  Seeing where your hands are , 1997, Nature.

[26]  Steven P. Tipper,et al.  Focusing on body sites: the role of spatial attention in action perception , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  Jon Driver,et al.  Reaching with a tool extends visual–tactile interactions into far space: evidence from cross-modal extinction , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  Atsushi Iriki,et al.  Shaping multisensory action–space with tools: evidence from patients with cross-modal extinction , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  C. Colby Action-Oriented Spatial Reference Frames in Cortex , 1998, Neuron.

[30]  Andrea Serino,et al.  Dynamic Size-Change of Peri-Hand Space Following Tool-Use: Determinants and Spatial Characteristics Revealed Through Cross-Modal Extinction , 2007, Cortex.