Please Scroll down for Article the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Segmenting the Body into Parts: Evidence from Biases in Tactile Perception

How do we individuate body parts? Here, we investigated the effect of body segmentation between hand and arm in tactile and visual perception. In a first experiment, we showed that two tactile stimuli felt farther away when they were applied across the wrist than when they were applied within a single body part (palm or forearm), indicating a “category boundary effect”. In the following experiments, we excluded two hypotheses, which attributed tactile segmentation to other, nontactile factors. In Experiment 2, we showed that the boundary effect does not arise from motor cues. The effect was reduced during a motor task involving flexion and extension movements of the wrist joint. Action brings body parts together into functional units, instead of pulling them apart. In Experiments 3 and 4, we showed that the effect does not arise from perceptual cues of visual discontinuities. We did not find any segmentation effect for the visual percept of the body in Experiment 3, nor for a neutral shape in Experiment 4. We suggest that the mental representation of the body is structured in categorical body parts delineated by joints, and that this categorical representation modulates tactile spatial perception.

[1]  H. C. Dijkerman,et al.  Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  Erminio Capitani,et al.  A Case of Impaired Naming and Knowledge of Body Parts. Are Limbs a Separate Sub-category? , 2006, Neurocase.

[3]  Patrick Haggard,et al.  The cutaneous rabbit revisited. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  P. Haggard,et al.  Having a body versus moving your body: How agency structures body-ownership , 2006, Consciousness and Cognition.

[5]  P. Strick,et al.  Muscle representation in the macaque motor cortex: an anatomical perspective. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Parts of the body in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island , 2006 .

[7]  A. Majid,et al.  Parts of the body: Cross-linguistic categorisation , 2006 .

[8]  N. J. Enfield,et al.  Parts of the body: Cross-linguistic categorisation. Special Issue of: Language Sciences (28(2-3)) , 2006 .

[9]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  Human Body Perception From The Inside Out , 2005 .

[10]  David Gil,et al.  The World Atlas of Language Structures , 2005 .

[11]  P. Haggard,et al.  Bodily Illusions Modulate Tactile Perception , 2005, Current Biology.

[12]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Bodies and their parts , 2005, Memory & cognition.

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

[14]  R. Cholewiak,et al.  Vibrotactile localization on the abdomen: Effects of place and space , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[16]  P. Haggard,et al.  Keeping the world a constant size: object constancy in human touch , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  A. A. Collins,et al.  Vibrotactile localization on the arm: Effects of place, space, and age , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Jan Ruben,et al.  Evidence for a rostral-to-caudal somatotopic organization in human primary somatosensory cortex with mirror-reversal in areas 3b and 1. , 2003, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  J. Massion,et al.  BODY SCHEMA AND BODY IMAGE-A DOUBLE DISSOCIATION IN DEAFFERENTED PATIENTS , 2003 .

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

[21]  S. Small,et al.  Somatotopy in human primary motor and somatosensory hand representations revisited. , 2001, Cerebral cortex.

[22]  Judy Czylok.  A SENSE OF TOUCH , 1979, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[23]  L. Buxbaum,et al.  The Role of the Dynamic Body Schema in Praxis: Evidence from Primary Progressive Apraxia , 2000, Brain and Cognition.

[24]  R. Cholewiak.  The perception of tactile distance: influences of body site, space, and time. , 1986, Perception.

[25]  C. Spence,et al.  Attention and the crossmodal construction of space , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  J. Bermúdez,et al.  The Paradox of Self-Consciousness , 1998 .

[27]  Atsushi Yamadori,et al.  Category-specific comprehension deficit restricted to body parts , 1997 .

[28]  G. Gescheider.  Psychophysics: The Fundamentals , 1997 .

[29]  George A. Gescheider,et al.  Psychophysics: The Fundamentals , 1997 .

[30]  Y Rossetti,et al.  Implicit processing of somaesthetic information: a dissociation between where and how? , 1995, Neuroreport.

[31]  Georg Goldenberg,et al.  Imitating gestures and manipulating a mannikin—The representation of the human body in ideomotor apraxia , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[32]  J. Cole,et al.  Body image and body schema in a deafferented subject , 1995 .

[33]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[34]  M. Schieber,et al.  How somatotopic is the motor cortex hand area? , 1993, Science.

[35]  Michael Martin.  The Contents of Experience: Sight and touch , 1992 .

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

[37]  S. Harnad.  Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition , 1990 .

[38]  C. B. Cave,et al.  Evidence for two types of spatial representations: hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[39]  B. O'Shaughnessy.  The sense of touch , 1989 .

[40]  R. Lemon.  The output map of the primate motor cortex , 1988, Trends in Neurosciences.

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

[42]  B. Green.  The perception of distance and location for dual tactile pressures , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  Cecil H. Brown.  general principles of human anatomical partonomy and speculations on the growth of partonomic nomenclature1 , 1976 .

[44]  S Weinstein,et al.  Intensive and extensive aspects of tactile sensitivity as a function of body part, sex, and laterality , 1968 .

[45]  L. Armour.  The Content of Experience , 1962 .

[46]  E. Boring.  Sensation and Perception. (Scientific Books: Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology) , 1943 .

[47]  G. Fleming,et al.  Somatic Motor and Sensory Representation in the Cerebral Cortex of Man as Studied by Electrical Stimulation. (Brain, vol. lx, p. 389, Dec., 1937.) Penfield, W., and Boldrey, E. , 1938 .

[48]  W. Penfield,et al.  SOMATIC MOTOR AND SENSORY REPRESENTATION IN THE CEREBRAL CORTEX OF MAN AS STUDIED BY ELECTRICAL STIMULATION , 1937 .

[49]  C. S. Parrish,et al.  Localisation of Cutaneous Impressions by Arm Movement without Pressure upon the Skin , 2022 .

[50]  I. P. Christensen,et al.  Psychophysics , 2019, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.