Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 192, Issue 4, pp 703–715 | Cite as

Interactions of different body parts in peripersonal space: how vision of the foot influences tactile perception at the hand

  • Tobias Schicke
  • Frank Bauer
  • Brigitte Röder
Research Article


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


Inverse efficiency


Receptive field



We thank Sybille Röper for her help with data acquisition.


  1. 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
  2. Gallace A, Spence C (2005) Visual capture of apparent limb position influences tactile temporal order judgments. Neurosci Lett 379:63–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Graziano MS, Cooke DF (2006) Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia 44:845–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Graziano MS, Hu XT, Gross CG (1997) Visuospatial properties of ventral premotor cortex. J Neurophysiol 77:2268–2292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Graziano MS, Reiss LA, Gross CG (1999) A neuronal representation of the location of nearby sounds. Nature 397:428–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graziano MS, Taylor CS, Moore T (2002) Complex movements evoked by microstimulation of precentral cortex. Neuron 34:841–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graziano MS, Yap GS, Gross CG (1994) Coding of visual space by premotor neurons. Science 266:1054–1057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Holmes NP, Spence C (2004) The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cogn Process 5:94–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y (1996) Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport 7:2325–2330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kitagawa N, Spence C (2005) Investigating the effect of a transparent barrier on the crossmodal congruency effect. Exp Brain Res 161:62–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kitagawa N, Zampini M, Spence C (2005) Audiotactile interactions in near and far space. Exp Brain Res 166:528–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ladavas E (2002) Functional and dynamic properties of visual peripersonal space. Trends Cogn Sci 6:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Shore DI, Spry E, Spence C (2002) Confusing the mind by crossing the hands. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 14:153–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spence C, Kingstone A, Shore DI, Gazzaniga MS (2001) Representation of visuotactile space in the split brain. Psychol Sci 12:90–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spence C, Pavani F, Driver J (2004a) Spatial constraints on visual–tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:148–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. World Medical Association (2004) Declaration of Helsinki (revised).
  25. Yamamoto S, Kitazawa S (2001) Reversal of subjective temporal order due to arm crossing. Nat Neurosci 4:759–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biological Psychology and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Education, Psychology and Human MovementUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations