Body schema: Difference between revisions
m formatting |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) m Citations: [215] added: doi, pmid, pmc. Tweaked: pages, volume, issue, title. Materialscientist |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A '''body schema''' is a person's representation (in the brain) of the positions of his or her body parts in space. The schema is updated during body movement. This typically is a non-conscious process, and is used primarily for spatial organization of action. It is therefore a central representation of the body’s [[spatial]] properties, which includes the length of [[Limb (anatomy)|limb]], the length of limb segments, their arrangement, the configuration of the segments in space, and the shape of the body surface.<ref name = "Haggard">{{cite book|author=Haggard, P. and D. Wolpert|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0-19-852576-1|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=JICqfxg97bEC&pg=PA261|chapter=Disorders of body schema|title= High-order motor disorders: from neuroanatomy and neurobiology to clinical neurology|year= 2005|pages=261–271}}</ref><ref name = "Holmes">{{cite journal|author=Holmes, N. and C. Spence|title=The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space|journal= Cognitive processing|year= 2004|volume=5|issue=2|pages=94–105}}</ref><ref name = "Macaluso">{{cite journal|author=Macaluso, E. and A. Maravita|title= The representation of space near the body through touch and vision|journal=Neuropsychologia|year= 2010|volume= 48|issue=3|pages=782–795}}</ref><ref name = "Maravita">{{cite journal|author=Maravita, A., C. Spence, and J. Driver|title= Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach|journal= Current Biology|year= 2003|volume= 13|issue=13|pages= |
A '''body schema''' is a person's representation (in the brain) of the positions of his or her body parts in space. The schema is updated during body movement. This typically is a non-conscious process, and is used primarily for spatial organization of action. It is therefore a central representation of the body’s [[spatial]] properties, which includes the length of [[Limb (anatomy)|limb]], the length of limb segments, their arrangement, the configuration of the segments in space, and the shape of the body surface.<ref name = "Haggard">{{cite book|author=Haggard, P. and D. Wolpert|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0-19-852576-1|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=JICqfxg97bEC&pg=PA261|chapter=Disorders of body schema|title= High-order motor disorders: from neuroanatomy and neurobiology to clinical neurology|year= 2005|pages=261–271}}</ref><ref name = "Holmes">{{cite journal|doi=10.1007/s10339-004-0013-3|author=Holmes, N. and C. Spence|title=The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space|journal= Cognitive processing|year= 2004|volume=5|issue=2|pages=94–105|pmid=16467906|pmc=1350799}}</ref><ref name = "Macaluso">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.010|author=Macaluso, E. and A. Maravita|title= The representation of space near the body through touch and vision|journal=Neuropsychologia|year= 2010|volume= 48|issue=3|pages=782–795|pmid=19837101}}</ref><ref name = "Maravita">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00449-4|author=Maravita, A., C. Spence, and J. Driver|title= Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach|journal= Current Biology|year= 2003|volume= 13|issue=13|pages=R531–R539|pmid=12842033}}</ref> Body schema also plays an important role in the integration and use of [[tools]] in humans.<ref name = "Berti">{{cite journal|doi=10.1162/089892900562237|author=Berti, A. and F. Frassinetti|title= When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use|journal= Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience|year= 2000|volume= 12|issue=3|pages=415–420|pmid=10931768}}</ref><ref name = "Carlson">{{cite journal|author=Carlson, T., et al.|title= Rapid Assimilation of External Objects Into the Body Schema|journal= Psychological Science|volume=21|issue=7|pages=1000–5|year= 2010|pmid=20483818|doi=10.1177/0956797610371962}}</ref><ref name = "Johnson">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002|author=Johnson-Frey, S.|title= The neural bases of complex tool use in humans|journal= Trends in Cognitive Sciences|year= 2004|volume= 8|issue=2|pages=71–78|pmid=15588811}}</ref><ref name = "Maravita2">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.008|author=Maravita, A. and A. Iriki|title= Tools for the body (schema)|journal= Trends in Cognitive Sciences|year= 2004|volume=8|issue=2|pages=79–86|pmid=15588812}}</ref> |
||
==History== |
==History== |
||
[[Henry Head]] first described the concept in 1911.<ref name = "Head">{{cite journal|author=Head, H. and G. Holmes, Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions|journal= Brain|year= 1911|volume= 34|issue=2–3|pages=102}}</ref> Body schema was first used to describe the disordered spatial representation of patients following brain [[parietal lobe]] damage. The term body schema is used for “organized models of ourselves”<ref name = "Head"/>. The term and definition first suggested by Head has endured nearly a century of research with only minor clarifications and extensions as more becomes known about [[neuroscience]] and the brain.<ref name="Haggard" />[[File:Henry Head.jpg|thumb|A portrait of Henry Head]] |
[[Henry Head]] first described the concept in 1911.<ref name = "Head">{{cite journal|doi=10.1093/brain/34.2-3.102|author=Head, H. and G. Holmes, Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions|title=SENSORY DISTURBANCES FROM CEREBRAL LESIONS|journal= Brain|year= 1911|volume= 34|issue=2–3|pages=102}}</ref> Body schema was first used to describe the disordered spatial representation of patients following brain [[parietal lobe]] damage. The term body schema is used for “organized models of ourselves”<ref name = "Head"/>. The term and definition first suggested by Head has endured nearly a century of research with only minor clarifications and extensions as more becomes known about [[neuroscience]] and the brain.<ref name="Haggard" />[[File:Henry Head.jpg|thumb|A portrait of Henry Head]] |
||
==Properties of body schema== |
==Properties of body schema== |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
===Modular=== |
===Modular=== |
||
The body schema is not represented wholly in a single [[List of regions in the human brain|region of the brain]]<ref name="Haggard" />. Recent [[fMRI]] studies confirm earlier results. For example, the schema for feet and hands are coded by different regions of the brain, while the fingers are represented by a separate part entirely |
The body schema is not represented wholly in a single [[List of regions in the human brain|region of the brain]]<ref name="Haggard" />. Recent [[fMRI]] studies confirm earlier results. For example, the schema for feet and hands are coded by different regions of the brain, while the fingers are represented by a separate part entirely |
||
<ref name = "Chaminade">{{cite journal|author=Chaminade, T., A. Meltzoff, and J. Decety, An fMRI study of imitation: action representation and body schema|journal= Neuropsychologia|year= 2005|volume=43|issue=1|pages=115–127}}</ref>. |
<ref name = "Chaminade">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.026|author=Chaminade, T., A. Meltzoff, and J. Decety, An fMRI study of imitation: action representation and body schema|title=An fMRI study of imitation: action representation and body schema.|journal= Neuropsychologia|year= 2005|volume=43|issue=1|pages=115–127|pmid=15488911}}</ref>. |
||
===Adaptable=== |
===Adaptable=== |
||
[[Neuroplasticity|Plastic]] changes to the body schema are active and continuous. For example, gradual changes to the body schema must occur over the lifetime of an individual as he or she grows and absolute and relative sizes of body parts change over his or her life span<ref name="Haggard" />. The development of the body schema has also been shown to occur in young [[child]]ren. One study showed that with these children (9- 14- and 19-month-olds), older children handled spoons to optimally and comfortably grip them to feed themselves, whereas younger children tended to reach with their [[handedness|dominant]] hand, regardless of the orientation of the spoon and eventual ease of use.<ref name = "Johnson2">{{cite journal|author=Johnson, S.|title= Thinking ahead: the case for motor imagery in prospective judgements of prehension|journal= Cognition|year= 2000|volume= 74|issue=1|pages=33–70}}</ref> |
[[Neuroplasticity|Plastic]] changes to the body schema are active and continuous. For example, gradual changes to the body schema must occur over the lifetime of an individual as he or she grows and absolute and relative sizes of body parts change over his or her life span<ref name="Haggard" />. The development of the body schema has also been shown to occur in young [[child]]ren. One study showed that with these children (9- 14- and 19-month-olds), older children handled spoons to optimally and comfortably grip them to feed themselves, whereas younger children tended to reach with their [[handedness|dominant]] hand, regardless of the orientation of the spoon and eventual ease of use.<ref name = "Johnson2">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00063-3|author=Johnson, S.|title= Thinking ahead: the case for motor imagery in prospective judgements of prehension|journal= Cognition|year= 2000|volume= 74|issue=1|pages=33–70|pmid=10594309}}</ref> |
||
Short term plasticity has been shown with the integration of tools into the body schema<ref name = "Carlson"/><ref name = "Maravita2"/>. The famous [[Rubber hand illusion#The rubber hand illusion|Rubber Hand Illusion]], has also shown the rapid reorganization of the body schema on the timescale of seconds, showing the high level of plasticity and speed with which the body schema reorganizes.<ref name = "Lewis">{{cite journal|author=Lewis, E. and D.M. Lloyd|title= Embodied experience: A first-person investigation of the rubber hand illusion|journal= Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences|year= 2010|volume= 9|issue=3|pages=317–339}}</ref> |
Short term plasticity has been shown with the integration of tools into the body schema<ref name = "Carlson"/><ref name = "Maravita2"/>. The famous [[Rubber hand illusion#The rubber hand illusion|Rubber Hand Illusion]], has also shown the rapid reorganization of the body schema on the timescale of seconds, showing the high level of plasticity and speed with which the body schema reorganizes.<ref name = "Lewis">{{cite journal|doi=10.1007/s11097-010-9154-2|author=Lewis, E. and D.M. Lloyd|title= Embodied experience: A first-person investigation of the rubber hand illusion|journal= Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences|year= 2010|volume= 9|issue=3|pages=317–339}}</ref> |
||
===Supramodal=== |
===Supramodal=== |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
===Autotopagnosia=== |
===Autotopagnosia=== |
||
[[Autotopagnosia]] typically occurs after left parietal lesions. Patients with this disorder make errors which result from confusion between adjacent body parts. For example, a patient may point to their knee when asked to point to their hip. Because the disorder involves the body schema, localization errors may be made both on the patient’s own body and that of others. The spatial unity of the body within the body schema has been damaged such that it has incorrectly been segmented in relation to its other modular parts.<ref name = "Sirigu">{{cite journal|author=Sirigu, A., et al.|title= Multiple representations contribute to body knowledge processing: Evidence from a case of autotopagnosia|journal= Brain|year= 1991|volume=114|issue=1|pages=629}}</ref> |
[[Autotopagnosia]] typically occurs after left parietal lesions. Patients with this disorder make errors which result from confusion between adjacent body parts. For example, a patient may point to their knee when asked to point to their hip. Because the disorder involves the body schema, localization errors may be made both on the patient’s own body and that of others. The spatial unity of the body within the body schema has been damaged such that it has incorrectly been segmented in relation to its other modular parts.<ref name = "Sirigu">{{cite journal|doi=10.1093/brain/114.1.629|author=Sirigu, A., et al.|title= Multiple representations contribute to body knowledge processing: Evidence from a case of autotopagnosia|journal= Brain|year= 1991|volume=114|issue=1|pages=629}}</ref> |
||
===Phantom limb=== |
===Phantom limb=== |
||
[[Phantom limb]]s are a phenomenon which occurs following [[amputation]] of a limb from an individual. In 90–98% of cases, amputees report feeling all or part of the limb or body part still there, taking up space.<ref name = "Ramachandran">{{cite journal|author=Ramachandran, V.S. and W. Hirstein|title= The perception of phantom limbs. The D. O. Hebb lecture|journal= Brain|year= 1998|volume= 121|issue=9|pages=1603–1630}}</ref> The amputee may perceive a limb under full control, or [[Paralysis|paralyzed]]. A common side effect of phantom limbs is phantom limb pain. The neurophysiological mechanisms by which phantom limbs occur is still under debate<ref name = "Giummarra">{{cite journal|author=Giummarra, M., et al.|title= Central mechanisms in phantom limb perception: the past, present and future|journal= Brain research reviews|year= 2007|volume= 54|issue=1|pages=219–232}}</ref>. A common theory posits that the [[Afferent nerve fiber|afferent neurons]], since deafferented due to amputation, typically remap to adjacent cortical regions within the brain. This can cause amputees to report feeling their missing limb being touched when a seemingly unrelated part of the body is stimulated (such as if the face is touched, but the amputee also feels their missing arm being stroked in a specific location). Another facet of phantom limbs is that the [[Efference copy|efferent copy]] (motor feedback) responsible for reporting on position to the body schema does not attenuate quickly. Thus the missing body part may be attributed by the amputee to still be in a fixed or movable position.<ref name="Haggard" /> |
[[Phantom limb]]s are a phenomenon which occurs following [[amputation]] of a limb from an individual. In 90–98% of cases, amputees report feeling all or part of the limb or body part still there, taking up space.<ref name = "Ramachandran">{{cite journal|doi=10.1093/brain/121.9.1603|author=Ramachandran, V.S. and W. Hirstein|title= The perception of phantom limbs. The D. O. Hebb lecture|journal= Brain|year= 1998|volume= 121|issue=9|pages=1603–1630}}</ref> The amputee may perceive a limb under full control, or [[Paralysis|paralyzed]]. A common side effect of phantom limbs is phantom limb pain. The neurophysiological mechanisms by which phantom limbs occur is still under debate<ref name = "Giummarra">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.01.009|author=Giummarra, M., et al.|title= Central mechanisms in phantom limb perception: the past, present and future|journal= Brain research reviews|year= 2007|volume= 54|issue=1|pages=219–232|pmid=17500095}}</ref>. A common theory posits that the [[Afferent nerve fiber|afferent neurons]], since deafferented due to amputation, typically remap to adjacent cortical regions within the brain. This can cause amputees to report feeling their missing limb being touched when a seemingly unrelated part of the body is stimulated (such as if the face is touched, but the amputee also feels their missing arm being stroked in a specific location). Another facet of phantom limbs is that the [[Efference copy|efferent copy]] (motor feedback) responsible for reporting on position to the body schema does not attenuate quickly. Thus the missing body part may be attributed by the amputee to still be in a fixed or movable position.<ref name="Haggard" /> |
||
==Tool use== |
==Tool use== |
||
Revision as of 09:59, 13 December 2010
A body schema is a person's representation (in the brain) of the positions of his or her body parts in space. The schema is updated during body movement. This typically is a non-conscious process, and is used primarily for spatial organization of action. It is therefore a central representation of the body’s spatial properties, which includes the length of limb, the length of limb segments, their arrangement, the configuration of the segments in space, and the shape of the body surface.[1][2][3][4] Body schema also plays an important role in the integration and use of tools in humans.[5][6][7][8]
History
Henry Head first described the concept in 1911.[9] Body schema was first used to describe the disordered spatial representation of patients following brain parietal lobe damage. The term body schema is used for “organized models of ourselves”[9]. The term and definition first suggested by Head has endured nearly a century of research with only minor clarifications and extensions as more becomes known about neuroscience and the brain.[1]
Properties of body schema
Haggard and Wolpert have identified seven fundamental properties of the body schema. It is spatially coded, modular, adaptable, supramodal, coherent, interpersonal and updated with movement.[1]
Spatial encoding
The body schema represents both position and configuration of the body as a 3-dimensional object in space. A combination of sensory information, primarily tactile and visual, contributes to the representation of the limbs in space.[1][3] This integration allows for stimuli to be localized in external space with respect to the body.[5] An example by Haggard and Wolpert shows the combination of tactile sensation of the hand with information about the joint angles of the arm, which allow for rapid movements of said arm to swat a fly.[1]
Modular
The body schema is not represented wholly in a single region of the brain[1]. Recent fMRI studies confirm earlier results. For example, the schema for feet and hands are coded by different regions of the brain, while the fingers are represented by a separate part entirely [10].
Adaptable
Plastic changes to the body schema are active and continuous. For example, gradual changes to the body schema must occur over the lifetime of an individual as he or she grows and absolute and relative sizes of body parts change over his or her life span[1]. The development of the body schema has also been shown to occur in young children. One study showed that with these children (9- 14- and 19-month-olds), older children handled spoons to optimally and comfortably grip them to feed themselves, whereas younger children tended to reach with their dominant hand, regardless of the orientation of the spoon and eventual ease of use.[11] Short term plasticity has been shown with the integration of tools into the body schema[6][8]. The famous Rubber Hand Illusion, has also shown the rapid reorganization of the body schema on the timescale of seconds, showing the high level of plasticity and speed with which the body schema reorganizes.[12]
Supramodal
By its nature, body schema integrates tactile and proprioceptive information to maintain a three-dimensional body representation. However, other sensory information, particularly visual, can be in the same representation of the body. This simultaneous participation means there are combined representations within the body schema, which suggests the involvement of a process to translate primary information (e.g. visual, tactile, etc.) into a single sensory modality or an abstract, amodal form[1].
Coherent
The body schema, to function properly, must be able to maintain coherent organization continuously.[1] To do so, it must be able to resolve any differences between sensory inputs. Resolving these inter-sensory inconsistencies can result in interesting sensations, such as those experienced during the Rubber Hand Illusion.[12]
Interpersonal
It is thought that an individual’s body schema is used to represent both one’s own body and the bodies of others. Mirror neurons are thought to play a role in the interpersonal characteristics of body schema. Interpersonal projection of one’s body schema plays an important role in successfully imitating motions such as hand gestures, especially while maintaining the handedness and location of the gesture, but not necessarily copying the exact motion itself.[10]
Updated with movement
A working body schema must be able to interactively track the movements and positions of body parts in space.[1] It has been shown that the visual and somatosensory receptive fields of parietal bimodal neurons update with hand movement[8]. This plasticity in the receptive field is also important for the ability to use tools.
Associated disorders
Deafferentation
The most direct of related disorders, deafferentation occurs when sensory input from the body is reduced or absent, without affecting efferent, or motor, neurons. The most famous case of this disorder is "IW", who was lost all sensory input from below the neck , resulting in temporary paralysis. He was forced to learn to control his movement all over again using only his conscious body image and visual feedback. As a result, when constant visual input is lost during an activity, such as walking, it becomes impossible for him to complete the task, which may result in falling, or simply stopping. IW requires constant attention to tasks to be able to complete them accurately, demonstrating how automatic and subconscious the process of integrating touch and proprioception into the body schema actually is.[13]
Autotopagnosia
Autotopagnosia typically occurs after left parietal lesions. Patients with this disorder make errors which result from confusion between adjacent body parts. For example, a patient may point to their knee when asked to point to their hip. Because the disorder involves the body schema, localization errors may be made both on the patient’s own body and that of others. The spatial unity of the body within the body schema has been damaged such that it has incorrectly been segmented in relation to its other modular parts.[14]
Phantom limb
Phantom limbs are a phenomenon which occurs following amputation of a limb from an individual. In 90–98% of cases, amputees report feeling all or part of the limb or body part still there, taking up space.[15] The amputee may perceive a limb under full control, or paralyzed. A common side effect of phantom limbs is phantom limb pain. The neurophysiological mechanisms by which phantom limbs occur is still under debate[16]. A common theory posits that the afferent neurons, since deafferented due to amputation, typically remap to adjacent cortical regions within the brain. This can cause amputees to report feeling their missing limb being touched when a seemingly unrelated part of the body is stimulated (such as if the face is touched, but the amputee also feels their missing arm being stroked in a specific location). Another facet of phantom limbs is that the efferent copy (motor feedback) responsible for reporting on position to the body schema does not attenuate quickly. Thus the missing body part may be attributed by the amputee to still be in a fixed or movable position.[1]
Tool use
Not only is it necessary for the body schema to be able to integrate and form a three-dimensional representation of the body, but it also plays an important role in tool use.[8] Studies recording neuronal activity in the intraparietal cortex in macaques have shown that, with training, the macaque body schema updates to include tools, such as those used for reaching, into the body schema.[8] In humans, body schema plays an important role in both simple and complex tool use, far beyond that of macaques.[5][7][8] Extensive training is also not necessary for this integration.[10]
The mechanisms by which tools are integrated into the body schema are not fully understood. However, studies with long-term training have shown interesting phenomena. When wielding tools in both hands in a crossed posture, behavioral effects reverse in a similar way to when only hands are crossed. Thus, sensory stimuli are delivered the same way be it to the hands directly or indirectly via the tools. These studies suggest the mind incorporates the tools into the same or similar areas as it does the adjacent hands.[8] Recent research into the short term plasticity of the body schema used individuals without any prior training with tools. These results, derived from the relation between afterimages and body schema, show that tools are incorporated into the body schema within seconds, regardless of length of training, though the results do not extend to other species besides humans[5].
Confusion with body image
Commonly in science and elsewhere, body schema and body image are misattributed or convoluted. Historically, the two were commonly lumped together, used interchangeably, or ill-defined. An effort has been made to deconvolve the two, and define them in concrete and differentiable ways.[17] In most basic terms, body image can be described as a person’s conscious perception of his or her own physical appearance. It is how individuals see themselves in a mirror, or when picturing themselves in their mind. In the terms of Head: “whether [body image] be visual or motor, is not the fundamental standard against which all postural changes are measured.”[9]
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Haggard, P. and D. Wolpert (2005). "Disorders of body schema". High-order motor disorders: from neuroanatomy and neurobiology to clinical neurology. Oxford University Press. pp. 261–271. ISBN 0-19-852576-1.
- ^ Holmes, N. and C. Spence (2004). "The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space". Cognitive processing. 5 (2): 94–105. doi:10.1007/s10339-004-0013-3. PMC 1350799. PMID 16467906.
- ^ a b Macaluso, E. and A. Maravita (2010). "The representation of space near the body through touch and vision". Neuropsychologia. 48 (3): 782–795. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.010. PMID 19837101.
- ^ Maravita, A., C. Spence, and J. Driver (2003). "Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach". Current Biology. 13 (13): R531–R539. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00449-4. PMID 12842033.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c d Berti, A. and F. Frassinetti (2000). "When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 12 (3): 415–420. doi:10.1162/089892900562237. PMID 10931768.
- ^ a b Carlson, T.; et al. (2010). "Rapid Assimilation of External Objects Into the Body Schema". Psychological Science. 21 (7): 1000–5. doi:10.1177/0956797610371962. PMID 20483818.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ a b Johnson-Frey, S. (2004). "The neural bases of complex tool use in humans". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 8 (2): 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002. PMID 15588811.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Maravita, A. and A. Iriki (2004). "Tools for the body (schema)". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 8 (2): 79–86. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.008. PMID 15588812.
- ^ a b c Head, H. and G. Holmes, Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions (1911). "SENSORY DISTURBANCES FROM CEREBRAL LESIONS". Brain. 34 (2–3): 102. doi:10.1093/brain/34.2-3.102.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c Chaminade, T., A. Meltzoff, and J. Decety, An fMRI study of imitation: action representation and body schema (2005). "An fMRI study of imitation: action representation and body schema". Neuropsychologia. 43 (1): 115–127. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.026. PMID 15488911.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Johnson, S. (2000). "Thinking ahead: the case for motor imagery in prospective judgements of prehension". Cognition. 74 (1): 33–70. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00063-3. PMID 10594309.
- ^ a b Lewis, E. and D.M. Lloyd (2010). "Embodied experience: A first-person investigation of the rubber hand illusion". Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 9 (3): 317–339. doi:10.1007/s11097-010-9154-2.
- ^ Gallagher, S. and J. Cole (1995). "Body schema and body image in a deafferented subject". Journal of Mind and Behavior. 16 (4): 369–390.
- ^ Sirigu, A.; et al. (1991). "Multiple representations contribute to body knowledge processing: Evidence from a case of autotopagnosia". Brain. 114 (1): 629. doi:10.1093/brain/114.1.629.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ Ramachandran, V.S. and W. Hirstein (1998). "The perception of phantom limbs. The D. O. Hebb lecture". Brain. 121 (9): 1603–1630. doi:10.1093/brain/121.9.1603.
- ^ Giummarra, M.; et al. (2007). "Central mechanisms in phantom limb perception: the past, present and future". Brain research reviews. 54 (1): 219–232. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.01.009. PMID 17500095.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ Gallagher, S. (2006). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0199204160.