Body-extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model?

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 307-319

  de Preester, Helena ^a,b   Tsakiris, Manos ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GHENT   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Body model; Embodiment; Incorporation; Prosthesis; Sense of body ownership; Tool

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350018171     PISSN: 15687759     EISSN: 15728676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11097-009-9121-y     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Armel, K. C., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2003). Projecting sensations to external objects: Evidence from skin conductance response. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biological, 270, 1499-1506.
2. Berlucchi, G., & Aglioti, S. (1997). The body in the brain: Neural bases of corporeal awareness. Trends in Neurosciences, 20, 560-564.
3. Blanke, O., Ortigue, S., Landis, T., & Seeck, M. (2002) Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Nature, 419, 269-270.
4. Bottini, G., Bisiach, E., Sterzi, R., & Vallarc, G. (2002). Feeling touches in someone else's hand. Neuroreport, 13, 249-252.
5. Botvinick, M. (2004). Probing the neural basis of body ownership. Science, 305, 782-783.
6. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see. Nature, 391, 756.
7. Cardinali, L., Frassinetti, F., Brozzoli, C., Roy, A. C., Urquizar, C., & Farnè, A. (2008). Functionality dependent tool embodiment. Poster presented at "Sense of Body Summer School", Bologna, June 2008 (retrieved from http://www.senseofbody.eu/Abstract-Sense%20of%20Body%202008.pdf on 15.01.2009).
8. Carruthers, G. (2008). Types of body representation and the sense of embodiment. Consciousness & Cognition, 17(4), 1302-1316.
9. Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345-351.
10. Costantini, M., & Haggard, P. (2007). The rubber hand illusion: Sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Consciousness & Cognition, 16(2), 229-240.
11. De Preester (2009) The bodily origins of technics: Heidegger, cognitive science and the prosthetic subject. In J. Kiverstein, & M. Wheeler (Eds.), Heidegger and cognitive science. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmill (in press).
12. de Vignemont, F., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2006). Body mereology. In G. Knoblich, I. Thornton, M. Grosjean, & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), Perception of the human body (pp. 147-170). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13. Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2007). The role of the right temporoparietal junction in social interaction: How low-level computational processes contribute to metacognition. The Neuroscientist: A Review Journal Bringing Neurobiology, Neurology and Psychiatry, 13, 580-593.
14. Ehrsson, H. H., Spence, C., & Passingham, R. E. (2004). That's my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science, 305, 875-877.
15. Gallagher, S., Butterworth, G., Lew, D., & Cole, J. (1998). Hand-mouth coordination, congenital absence of limb, and evidence for innate body schemas. Brain and Cognition, 38, 53-65.
16. Farnè, A., Serino, A., & Làdavas, E. (2007). Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space following tool-use: determinants and spatial characteristics revealed through cross-modal extinction. Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 43(3), 436-443.
17. Graziano, M. S. A., & Botvinick, M. M. (2001). How the brain represents the body: insights from neurophysiology and psychology. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action, attention and performance XIX (pp. 136-158). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
18. Graziano, M. S. A., Cooke, D. F., & Taylor, C. S. R. (2000). Coding the location of the arm by sight. Science, 290, 1782-1786.
19. Heidegger, M. (1962 [1927]). Being and time (transl. Macquarrie J, Robinson E). London:: Blackwell.
20. Holmes, N. P., Calvert, G. A., & Spence, C. (2007). Tool use changes multisensory interactions in seconds: Evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. Experimental Brain Research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Experimentation Cerebrale, 183(4), 465-476.
21. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport, 7, 2325-2330.
22. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
23. Longo, M. R., Schüür, F., Kammers, M. P. M., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition, 107(3), 978-998.
24. Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79-86.
25. Maravita, A., Spence, C., Kennett, S., & Driver, J. (2002). Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition, 83, B25-B34.
26. Maravita, A., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2003). Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Current Biology, 13, R531-R539.
27. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenology of perception (transl. C. Smith). London: Routledge.
28. Morgan, R., & Rochat, P. (1997). Intermodal calibration of the body in early infancy. Ecological Psychology, 9, 1-24.
29. Mort, D. J., Malhotra, P., Mannan, S. K., Rorden, C., Pambakian, A., Kennard, C., et al. (2003). The anatomy of visual neglect. Brain, 126, 1986-1997.
30. Moseley, G. L., Olthof, N., Venema, A., Don, S., Wijers, M., Gallace, A., et al. (2008). Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(35), 13169-13173.
31. Murray, C. D. (2004). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(16), 963-973.
32. Pavani, F., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2000). Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society/APS, 11, 353-359.
33. Plato (2003). Phaedrus (transl. Scully, S.). Newburyport: Focus.
34. Rochat, P., & Morgan, R. (1995). Spatial determinants in the perception of self-produced leg movements by 3- to 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 31, 626-636.
35. Saxe, R., & Wexler, A. (2005). Making sense of another mind: the role of the right temporo-parietal junction. Neuropsychologia, 43(10), 1391-1399.
36. Scarry, E. (1994). The merging of bodies in artifacts in the social contract. In G. Bender, & T. Druckery (Eds.), Culture on the brink: ideologies of technology (pp. 85-97). Seattle: Bay.
37. Schwoebel, J., & Coslett, H. B. (2005). Evidence for multiple, distinct representations of the human body. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(4), 543-553.
38. Serino, A., Bassolino, M., Farnè, A., & Làdavas, E. (2007). Extended multisensory space in blind cane users. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 18(7), 642-648.
39. Shulman, G. L., Astafiev, S. V., McAvoy, M. P., d'Avossa, G., & Corbetta, M. (2007). Right TPJ deactivation during visual search: Functional significance and support for a filter hypothesis. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2625-2633.
40. Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1. The fault of epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
41. Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2005). The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 80-91.
42. Tsakiris, M., Costantini, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). The role of the right temporo-parietal junction in maintaining a coherent sense of one's body. Neuropsychologia, 46(12), 3014-3018.
43. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 880-888.
44. Wolpert, D. M., Goodbody, S. J., & Husain, M. (1998). Maintaining internal representations: the role of the human superior parietal lobe. Nature Neuroscience, 1(6), 529-533.