Peripersonal space representation develops independently from visual experience

Ricciardi, Emiliano; Menicagli, Dario; Leo, Andrea; Costantini, Marcello; Pietrini, Pietro; Sinigaglia, Corrado

doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17896-9

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Serino and collaborators’ study 60 cited above indeed illustrated that blind people displayed more permanent changes than blindfolded sighted participants in their peripersonal space representation. Quite interestingly, it seems that congenitally blind participants can remap objects in their peripersonal space, or in others’ peripersonal space as well as sighted participants 61 , reinforcing the need for further investigations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Somatosensory-guided tool use modifies arm representation for action

Martel

Cardinali

Bertonati

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tool-use changes both peripersonal space and body representations, with several effects being nowadays termed tool embodiment. Since somatosensation was typically accompanied by vision in most previous tool use studies, whether somatosensation alone is sufficient for tool embodiment remains unknown. Here we address this question via a task assessing arm length representation at an implicit level. Namely, we compared movement’s kinematics in blindfolded healthy participants when grasping an object before and after tool-use. Results showed longer latencies and smaller peaks in the arm transport component after tool-use, consistent with an increased length of arm representation. No changes were found in the hand grip component and correlations revealed similar kinematic signatures in naturally long-armed participants. Kinematics changes did not interact with target object position, further corroborating the finding that somatosensory-guided tool use may increase the represented size of the participants’ arm. Control experiments ruled out alternative interpretations based upon altered hand position sense. In addition, our findings indicate that tool-use effects are specific for the implicit level of arm representation, as no effect was observed on the explicit estimate of the forearm length. These findings demonstrate for the first time that somatosensation is sufficient for incorporating a tool that has never been seen, nor used before.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Somatosensory-guided tool use modifies arm representation for action

Martel

Cardinali

Bertonati

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Behavioral studies of neurological patients as well as neuroimaging studies employing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with healthy participants demonstrated that humans also maintain populations of neurons, located within the intraparietal sulcus (IPS), supramarginal gyrus (SMG), and regions of the premotor cortex, that selectively represent the space near the body (Berti & Frassinetti, 2000;Brozzoli, Ehrsson, & Farnè, 2014;Cowey, Small, & Ellis, 1994;Ferri et al, 2015;Serino, Canzoneri, & Avenanti, 2011; for reviews, see Cléry et al, 2015;Grivaz, Blanke, & Serino, 2017). Much evidence also suggests that representations of PPS in humans, like those of the macaque monkey, are multimodal in nature, responding to visual (Longo & Lourenco, 2006), visuo-tactile (Noel, Pfeiffer, Blanke, & Serino, 2015;Serino et al, 2015), and audio-tactile (Canzoneri, Magosso, & Serino, 2012;Ricciardi et al, 2017) information (for review, see Van der Stoep et al, 2015). Moreover, and crucially, as in the monkey, these representations in humans appear to be body-part-centered, such that bodily dimensions influence the size of PPS.…”

Section: The Non-defensive Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is peripersonal space? An examination of unresolved empirical issues and emerging findings

Hunley

Lourenco

2018

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Findings from diverse fields of study, including neuroscience, psychology, zoology, and sociology, demonstrate that human and non-human primates maintain a representation of the space immediately surrounding the body, known as peripersonal space (PPS). However, progress in this field has been hampered by the lack of an agreed upon definition of PPS. Since the beginning of its formal study, scientists have argued that PPS plays a crucial role in both defensive and non-defensive actions. Yet consensus is lacking about the cognitive and neural instantiation of these functions. In particular, researchers have begun to ask whether a single, unified system of spatial-attentional resources supports both the defensive and non-defensive functions of PPS or, rather, whether there are multiple, independent systems. Moreover, there are open questions about the specificity of PPS. For example: Does PPS dissociate from other well-known phenomena such as personal space and the body schema? Finally, emerging research has brought attention to important questions about individual differences in the flexibility of PPS and the distribution of PPS in front compared to behind the body. In this advanced review, we shed light on questions about the nature of PPS, offering answers when the research permits or providing recommendations for achieving answers in future research. In so doing, we lay the groundwork for a comprehensive definition of PPS. This article is categorized under: Cognitive Biology > Evolutionary Roots of Cognition Psychology > Attention Psychology > Perception and Psychophysics Neuroscience > Plasticity.

show abstract

“…Similarly, multisensory space near the body (peripersonal space) has been shown to be influenced by (lack of) early visual experience (Collignon, Charbonneau, Lassonde & Lepore, 2009; but see also : Ricciardi et al, 2017). Thus, there are indications that multisensory integration mechanisms are altered in blind individuals, although very little is known about such changes in the integration process responsible for the perception of their own bodies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are blind individuals immune to bodily illusions? Somatic rubber hand illusion in the blind revisited

Radziun¹,

Korczyk²,

Szwed³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisensory awareness of one’s own body relies on the integration of signals from various sensory modalities such as vision, touch, and proprioception. But how do blind individuals perceive their bodies without visual cues, and does the brain of a blind person integrate bodily senses differently from a sighted person? To address this question, we aimed to replicate the only two previous studies on this topic, which claimed that blind individuals do not experience the somatic rubber hand illusion, a bodily illusion triggered by the integration of correlated tactile and proprioceptive signals from the two hands. We used a larger sample size than the previous studies and added Bayesian analyses to examine statistical evidence in favor of the lack of an illusion effect. Moreover, we employed tests to investigate whether enhanced tactile acuity and cardiac interoceptive accuracy in blind individuals could also explain the weaker illusion. We tested 36 blind individuals and 36 age- and sex-matched sighted volunteers. The results show that blind individuals do not experience the somatic rubber hand illusion based on questionnaire ratings and behavioral measures that assessed changes in hand position sense toward the location of the rubber hand. This conclusion is supported by Bayesian evidence in favor of the null hypothesis. Tactile acuity was not correlated with illusion measures in either group, but cardiac interoceptive accuracy was negatively correlated with questionnaire ratings of illusion strength in the sighted group. The findings confirm that blind individuals do not experience the somatic rubber hand illusion, indicating that lack of visual experience leads to permanent changes in multisensory bodily perception. Taken together, this study suggests that changes in multisensory integration of tactile and proprioceptive signals, possibly combined with more accurate interoception, may explain why blind individuals appear “immune” to the nonvisual version of the rubber hand illusion.

show abstract

Peripersonal space representation develops independently from visual experience

Cited by 11 publications

References 60 publications

Somatosensory-guided tool use modifies arm representation for action

Somatosensory-guided tool use modifies arm representation for action

What is peripersonal space? An examination of unresolved empirical issues and emerging findings

Are blind individuals immune to bodily illusions? Somatic rubber hand illusion in the blind revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About