Hand processing depends on the implicit access to a spatially and bio-mechanically organized structural description of the body

Recent evidence using a modified Simon task suggests that hand processing involves implicit coding of the spatial position of the hand relative to the side of the body to which it is attached from the viewer's reference point. This effect, called the Sidedness effect, has been found to emerge only when at least the forearm is present (the forearm thus providing the spatial reference for representing the rest of body) and it has been interpreted within the framework of the structural representation of the body. In this study we use the same modified Simon task to investigate whether hand processing involves the implicit access to a spatially and bio-mechanically organized structural body representation. In a first experiment the hand stimuli were attached to a body inappropriately without respecting the bio-mechanical constraints and no Sidedness effect was found. In Experiment 2 where the hand stimuli were presented attached to a non-bodily shape the Sidedness effect was observed only when they were attached appropriately. Whilst previous research has involved explicit representational processes, our results suggest that we can implicit access to a 'structural description of the body' and elaborate the anatomical and bio-mechanical plausibility.

[1]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Reactions toward the source of stimulation. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  Carlo Umiltà,et al.  Is handedness recognition automatic? A study using a Simon-like paradigm. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  J. Freyd,et al.  Timing and Apparent Motion Path Choice With Human Body Photographs , 1993 .

[5]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  Dynamic Representations of Human Body Movement , 1999, Perception.

[6]  R. C. Oldfield.  THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .

[7]  Flavia Santoianni,et al.  Brain Development in Learning Environments: Embodied and Perceptual Advancements , 2007 .

[8]  Catherine L Reed,et al.  Turning configural processing upside down: part and whole body postures. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  W. Prinz,et al.  Body inversion effect without body sense: Insights from deafferentation , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  J. Decety,et al.  Comparative analysis of actual and mental movement times in two graphic tasks , 1989, Brain and Cognition.

[11]  J. Freyd,et al.  Apparent Motion of the Human Body , 1990 .

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

[13]  P. Viviani,et al.  The relation between linear extent and velocity in drawing movements , 1983, Neuroscience.

[14]  Pawan Sinha,et al.  Top-down influences on stereoscopic depth-perception , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  N. Logothetis,et al.  Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys , 1995, Current Biology.

[16]  C. B. Cave,et al.  The Role of Parts and Spatial Relations in Object Identification , 1993, Perception.

[17]  Nadia Bolognini,et al.  Somatic and Motor Components of Action Simulation , 2007, Current Biology.

[18]  C. Reed,et al.  Are human bodies represented differently from other objects? Experience shapes object representations , 2004 .

[19]  Silvio Ionta,et al.  Virtual lesion of ventral premotor cortex impairs visual perception of biomechanically possible but not impossible actions , 2008, Social neuroscience.

[20]  L. Parsons.  Imagined spatial transformations of one's hands and feet , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  S. Sumi.  Upside-down Presentation of the Johansson Moving Light-Spot Pattern , 1984, Perception.

[22]  L. Parsons.  Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  N. Logothetis,et al.  View-dependent object recognition by monkeys , 1994, Current Biology.

[24]  I. M. Harris,et al.  Anatomical limitations in mental transformations of body parts , 2005 .

[25]  J. Stekelenburg,et al.  The neural correlates of perceiving human bodies: an ERP study on the body-inversion effect , 2004, Neuroreport.

[26]  H. Branch Coslett,et al.  Evidence for Multiple, Distinct Representations of the Human Body , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  V. Stone,et al.  The Body-Inversion Effect , 2003, Psychological science.

[30]  A. Sirigu,et al.  Multiple representations contribute to body knowledge processing. Evidence from a case of autotopagnosia. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[31]  Gian Luca Romani,et al.  Neural systems underlying observation of humanly impossible movements: an FMRI study. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[32]  Stefano Facchini,et al.  Motor facilitation of the human cortico-spinal system during observation of bio-mechanically impossible movements , 2005, NeuroImage.

[33]  L M Parsons,et al.  Imagined spatial transformation of one's body. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  P. Haggard,et al.  Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reveals Two Cortical Pathways for Visual Body Processing , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience.

[35]  Daphna Weinshall,et al.  A self-organizing multiple-view representation of 3D objects , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[36]  K. Sekiyama,et al.  Kinesthetic aspects of mental representations in the identification of left and right hands , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[37]  Laurel J. Buxbaum,et al.  Specialised structural descriptions for human body parts: Evidence from autotopagnosia , 2001, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[38]  A. Sirigu,et al.  Motor and Visual Imagery as Two Complementary but Neurally Dissociable Mental Processes , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.