The body schema, a constantly updated representation of the body and its parts, has been suggested to emerge from body part-specific representations which integrate tactile, visual, and proprioceptive information about the identity and posture of the body. Studies using different approaches have provided evidence for a distinct representation of the visual space ~30 cm around the upper body, and predominantly the hands, termed the peripersonal space. In humans, peripersonal space representations have often been investigated with a visual–tactile crossmodal congruency task. We used this task to test if a representation of peripersonal space exists also around the feet, and to explore possible interactions of peripersonal space representations of different body parts. In Experiment 1, tactile stimuli to the hands and feet were judged according to their elevation while visual distractors presented near the same limbs had to be ignored. Crossmodal congruency effects did not differ between the two types of limbs, suggesting a representation of peripersonal space also around the feet. In Experiment 2, tactile stimuli were presented to the hands, and visual distractors were flashed either near the participant’s foot, near a fake foot, or in distant space. Crossmodal congruency effects were larger in the real foot condition than in the two other conditions, indicating interactions between the peripersonal space representations of foot and hand. Furthermore, results of all three conditions showed that vision of the stimulated body part, compared to only proprioceptive input about its location, strongly influences crossmodal interactions for tactile perception, affirming the central role of vision in the construction of the body schema.
Crossmodal Body schema Peripersonal space Hand Foot
Crossmodal congruency effect
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank Sybille Röper for her help with data acquisition.
Duhamel JR, Colby CL, Goldberg ME (1998) Ventral intraparietal area of the macaque: congruent visual and somatic response properties. J Neurophysiol 79:126–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gallace A, Spence C (2005) Visual capture of apparent limb position influences tactile temporal order judgments. Neurosci Lett 379:63–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano MS, Cooke DF (2006) Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia 44:845–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano MS, Hu XT, Gross CG (1997) Visuospatial properties of ventral premotor cortex. J Neurophysiol 77:2268–2292PubMedGoogle Scholar
Graziano MS, Reiss LA, Gross CG (1999) A neuronal representation of the location of nearby sounds. Nature 397:428–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano MS, Taylor CS, Moore T (2002) Complex movements evoked by microstimulation of precentral cortex. Neuron 34:841–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes NP, Calvert GA, Spence C (2004) Extending or projecting peripersonal space with tools? Multisensory interactions highlight only the distal and proximal ends of tools. Neurosci Lett 372:62–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes NP, Calvert GA, Spence C (2007) Tool use changes multisensory interactions in seconds: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. Exp Brain Res 183:465–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes NP, Snijders HJ, Spence C (2006) Reaching with alien limbs: visual exposure to prosthetic hands in a mirror biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership. Percept Psychophys 68:685–701PubMedGoogle Scholar
Holmes NP, Spence C (2004) The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cogn Process 5:94–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y (1996) Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport 7:2325–2330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa N, Spence C (2005) Investigating the effect of a transparent barrier on the crossmodal congruency effect. Exp Brain Res 161:62–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa N, Zampini M, Spence C (2005) Audiotactile interactions in near and far space. Exp Brain Res 166:528–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladavas E (2002) Functional and dynamic properties of visual peripersonal space. Trends Cogn Sci 6:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maravita A, Spence C, Kennett S, Driver J (2002a) Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition 83:B25–B34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maravita A, Spence C, Sergent C, Driver J (2002b) Seeing your own touched hands in a mirror modulates cross-modal interactions. Psychol Sci 13:350–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavani F, Spence C, Driver J (2000) Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychol Sci 11:353–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schicke T, Röder B (2006) Spatial remapping of touch: confusion of perceived stimulus order across hand and foot. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:11808–11813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence C, Pavani F, Maravita A, Holmes N (2004b) Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuotactile peripersonal space in humans: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. J Physiol Paris 98:171–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar