Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Cognitive Neuroscience of Incorporation: Body Image Adjustment and Neuroprosthetics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Systems Neuroscience

Abstract

In this review, I critically evaluate a number of the key factors that have recently been shown to modulate the incorporation of a variety of non-body objects (including rubber hands, prosthetic limbs, and other stimuli external to the body of the observer), into the body representation of the observer/user. I summarize the latest findings demonstrating the physiological and neural correlates of the incorporation of non-body objects into the representation of the body. Taken together, the hope is that a number of the key insights gained from furthering our understanding of incorporation in neurologically normal and intact human participants may be helpful when it comes to trying to enhance the likelihood of the successful incorporation of prostheses and neuroprostheses in amputees and those who are unable to control the movement of their limbs.

Prosthetics: (Definition) an artificial body part, such as a limb, a heart, or a breast implant (https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=cr&ei=oS-XUpWpI8GOtAaM9YGoCA#q=prosthesis+definition); an artificial device used to replace a missing body part, such as a limb, tooth, eye, or heart valve (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prosthesis); an artificial device to replace or augment a missing or impaired part of the body (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosthesis).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that in using the term ‘body representation’ I am attempting to sidestep the ongoing debate between the theory-laden terms ‘body schema’ and ‘body image’ (see [1–8]).

  2. 2.

    Bottini et al. [33] suggest that the phantom limb phenomenon can, in some sense, be considered the opposite condition to somatoparaphrenia.

  3. 3.

    Or, as Melville [46] had one of the characters say in his novel Moby Dick: ‘Look ye, carpenter, I dare say though callest thyself a right good workmanlike workman, eh? Well, then, will it speak thoroughly well for thy work, if, when I come to mount this leg though makest, I shall nevertheless feel another leg in the same identical place with it; that is, carpenter, my old lost leg; the flesh and blood one, I mean’.

  4. 4.

    That said, a version of the RHI has also been reported in blindfolded participants (see [28]).

  5. 5.

    The very simplicity of the paradigm itself undoubtedly contributing to the plethora of subsequent publications.

  6. 6.

    And while it might not be altogether accurate to refer to an illusion of ownership over an arm seen in a virtual reality (VR) display as the ‘rubber’ hand illusion, this is nevertheless the name that has stuck.

  7. 7.

    These researchers conducted a principal components analysis of their questionnaire data that suggested embodiment made up of ownership, location, and agency.

  8. 8.

    See Spence et al. [91, 92] for reviews of the literature on the crossmodal congruency effect.

  9. 9.

    Tools are also interesting in this regard [31]. Serino et al. [101] have shown just how rapid the incorporation of familiar tools, such as the case used by some blind individuals, can be (see also [102]).

  10. 10.

    The area of individual differences in incorporation has perhaps not attracted as much research interest as it might.

  11. 11.

    Tsakiris [20] talks of there being a body model, which he defines as a ‘reference description of the visual, anatomical and structural properties of the body’.

  12. 12.

    Guterstam et al. [83] talk of the supernumerary hand illusion.

  13. 13.

    There would appear to be further research to be conducted here, given the link between changes in body temperature in self-injurious behaviours ([138]; see also [44]).

  14. 14.

    Of course, the sense of ownership of our own body (rather than of a prosthesis) is just as interesting. However, since the body remains a fairly constant part of our experience, it is simply much harder to study experimentally.

  15. 15.

    The neural changes associated with excorporation of a tool appear to have much more to do with attention and a change in activation in sensory areas (e.g., see [145]).

References

  1. Dijkerman HC, de Haan EHF (2007) Somatosensory processes subserving perception and action. Behav Brain Sci 30:189–239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gallagher S (1986) Body image and body schema: a conceptual clarification. J Mind Behav 7:541–554

    Google Scholar 

  3. Holmes NP, Spence C (2007) Dissociating body image and body schema with rubber hands. Behav Brain Sci 30:211–212

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schilder P (1935) The image and appearance of the human body. International Universities Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Giummarra MJ, Gibson SJ, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Bradshaw JL (2008) Mechanisms underlying embodiment, disembodiment and loss of embodiment. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 32:143–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Giummarra MJ, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Nicholls MER, Gibson SJ, Bradshaw JL (2010) The phantom in the mirror: a modified rubber-hand illusion in amputees and normal. Perception 39:103–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Head H, Holmes G (1911–1912) Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Brain 34:102–254

    Google Scholar 

  8. Paillard J (1999) Body schema and body image. A double dissociation in deafferented patient. In: Gantchev GN, Mori S, Massion J (eds) Motor control, today and tomorrow. Academic, Sofia, pp 197–214

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gow D, MacLachlan M, Aird C (2004) Reaching with electricity: externally powered prosthetics and embodiment. In: MacLachlan M, Gallagher P (eds) Enabling technologies: body image and body function. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  10. Haans A, Ijsselsteijn WA (2012) Embodiment and telepresence: toward a comprehensive theoretical framework. Interact Comput 24:211–218

    Google Scholar 

  11. Perez-Marcos D, Slater M, Sanchez-Vivez MV (2009) Inducing a virtual hand ownership illusion through a brain-computer interface. Neuroreport 20:589–594

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwartz AB (2004) Cortical neural prosthetics. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:487–507

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bermudez JL, Marcel A, Eilan N (eds) (1995) The body and the self. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gallagher S (2000) Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci 4:14–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Martin MGF (1995) Bodily awareness: a sense of ownership. In: Bermudez JL, Marcel A, Eilan N (eds) The body and the self. MIT, Cambridge, pp 267–289

    Google Scholar 

  16. Blanke O (2012) Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness. Nat Rev Neurosci 13:556–571

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Botvinick M (2004) Probing the neural basis of body ownership. Science 305:782–783

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Graziano MSA, Botvinick MM (2002) How the brain represents the body: insights from neurophysiology and psychology. In: Prinz W, Hommel B (eds) Common mechanisms in perception and action: attention and performance XIX. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 136–157

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ehrsson HH (2012) The concept of body ownership and its relation to multisensory integration. In: Stein BE (ed) The new handbook of multisensory processes. MIT, Cambridge, pp 775–792

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tsakiris M (2010) My body in the brain: a neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 48:703–712

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gallace A, Spence C (2014) In touch with the future: the sense of touch from cognitive neuroscience to virtual reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  22. Knoblich G, Thornton IM, Grosjean M, Shiffrar M (eds) (2005) Human body perception from the inside out. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  23. MacLachlan M, Desmond D, Horgan O (2003) Psychological correlates of illusory body experiences. J Rehabil Res Dev 40:59–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MA (2006) Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends Neurosci 29:536–546

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Navarro X, Kreuger TB, Lago N, Micera S, Stieglitz T, Dario P (2005) A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J Peripher Nerv Syst 10:229–258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tastevin J (1937) En partant de l’expérience d’Aristote: Les déplacements artificiels des parties du corps ne sont pas suivis par le sentiment de ces parties ni pas les sensations qu’on peut y produire [Starting from Aristotle’s experiment: The artificial displacements of parts of the body are not followed by feeling in these parts or by the sensations which can be produced there]. Encéphale 1(57–84):140–158

    Google Scholar 

  27. Aglioti S, Smania N, Manfredi M, Berlucchi G (1996) Disownership of left hand and objects related to it in a patient with right brain damage. Neuroreport 8:293–296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Holmes NP, Spence C (2005) Beyond the body schema: Visual, prosthetic, and technological contributions to bodily perception and awareness. In: Knoblich G, Thornton IM, Grosjean M, Shiffrar M (eds) Human body perception from the inside out. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–64

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ryle G (1949) The concept of mind. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tsakiris M, Carpenter L, James D, Fotopoulou A (2010) Hands only illusion: multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects. Exp Brain Res 204:343–352

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Spence C (2011) Assessing the consequences of tool-use for the representation of peripersonal space in humans. In: McCormack T, Hoerl C, Butterfill S (eds) Tool use and causal cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 220–247

    Google Scholar 

  32. Baier B, Karnath H (2008) Tight link between our sense of limb ownership and self-awareness of actions. Stroke 39:486–488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bottini G, Bisiach E, Sterzi R, Vallar G (2002) Feeling touches in someone else’s hand. Neuroreport 13:249–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Halligan PW, Marshall JC, Wade DT (1995) Unilateral somatoparaphrenia after right-hemisphere stroke – a case description. Cortex 31:173–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lopez C, Halje P, Blanke O (2008) Body ownership and embodiment: vestibular and multisensory mechanisms. Clin Neurophysiol 38:149–161

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tavcar R, Dernovsek M, Zvan V (1999) Self amputation of left hand: a case report. J Clin Psychiatry 60:793–794

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Vallar G, Ronchi R (2009) Somatoparaphrenia: a body delusion. A review of the neuropsychological literature. Exp Brain Res 192:533–551

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Feinberg T, Venneri A, Simone AM, Fan Y, Northoff G (2010) The neuroanatomy of asomatognosia and somatoparaphrenia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 81:276–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Moro V, Zampini M, Aglioti SM (2004) Changes in spatial position of hands modify tactile extinction but not disownership of contralesional hand in two right brain-damaged patients. Neurocase 10:437–443

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cronholm B (1951) Phantom limbs in amputees. Acta Psychiatr Neurol Scand 72(Suppl):1–310

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Cronholm B (1951) Phantom limb in amputees: study of changes in integration of centripetal impulses with special reference to referred sensations. Acta Psychiatr Neurol 72(suppl):1–85

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Katz J (1992) Psychophysical correlates of phantom limb experience. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 55:811–821

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Katz J (1992) Psychophysiological contributions to phantom limbs. Can J Psychiatry 37:282–298

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nikolajsen L, Jensen TS (2001) Phantom limb pain. Br J Anaesth 87:107–116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Peréz-Barrero P, Lafuente F, Marqués MD (2003) Phantom limb: from Paré to Moby Dick. Int Congr Ser 1242:503–504

    Google Scholar 

  46. Melville H (1851/1985). Moby dick. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mancini F, Longo MR, Iannetti GD, Haggard P (2011) A supramodal representation of the body surface. Neuropsychologia 49:1194–1201

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mancini F, Longo MR, Kammers MPM, Haggard P (2011) Visual distortion of body size modulates pain perception. Psychol Sci 22:325–330

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Senna I, Maravita A, Bolognini N, Parise CV (2013) The marble-hand illusion. Multisens Res 26(Supple.):203

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tajadura-Jiménez A, Väljamäe A, Toshima I, Kimura T, Tsakiris M, Kitagawa N (2012) Action sounds recalibrate perceived tactile distance. Curr Biol 22:R516–R517

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Graziano MSA, Cooke DF, Taylor CSR (2000) Coding the location of the arm by sight. Science 290:1782–1786

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Longo MR, Cardoza S, Haggard P (2008) Visual enhancement of touch and the bodily self. Conscious Cogn 17:1181–1191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE (2004) That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305:875–877

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Durgin FH, Evans L, Dunphy N, Klostermann S, Simmons K (2007) Rubber hands feel the touch of light. Psychol Sci 18:152–157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Farnè A, Pavani F, Meneghello F, Làdavas E (2000) Left tactile extinction following visual stimulation of a rubber hand. Brain 123:2350–2360

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Spence C, Pavani F, Driver J (2004) Spatial constraints on visual-tactile crossmodal distractor congruency effects. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:148–169

    Google Scholar 

  58. Crucianelli L, Metcalf NK, Fotopoulou AK, Jenkinson PM (2013) Bodily pleasure matters: velocity of touch modulates body ownership during the rubber hand illusion. Front Psychol 4:703

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Spence C, Pavani F, Driver J (1998) What crossing the hands can reveal about crossmodal links in spatial attention. Abstracts Psychonom Soc 3:13

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ehrsson HH, Rosén B, Stockselius A, Ragnö C, Köhler P, Lundborg G (2008) Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own. Brain 131:3443–3452

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rosén B, Ehrsson HH, Antfolk C, Cipriani C, Sebelius F, Lundborg G (2009) Referral of sensation to an advanced humanoid robotic hand prosthesis. Scand J Plast Reconstruct Surg Hand Surg 43:260–266

    Google Scholar 

  62. David N, Fiori F, Aglioti SM (2014) Susceptibility to the rubber hand illusion does not tell the whole body-awareness story. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 14:297–306

    Google Scholar 

  63. Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (2003) Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc Roy Soc B 270:1499–1506

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kanayama N, Sato A, Ohira H (2009) The role of gamma band oscillations and synchrony on rubber hand illusion and crossmodal integration. Brain Cogn 69:19–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Press C, Heyes C, Haggard P, Eimer M (2008) Visuotactile learning and body representation: An ERP study with rubber hands and rubber objects. J Cogn Neurosci 20:312–323

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Holmes NP, Snijders D, Spence C (2006) Reaching with alien limbs: visual exposure to prosthetic hands biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership. Percept Psychophys 68:685–701

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Pavani F, Spence C, Driver J (2000) Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychol Sci 11:353–359

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wuillemin D, Richardson B (1982) On the failure to recognize the back of one’s own hand. Perception 11:53–55

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Austen EL, Soto-Faraco S, Enns JT, Kingstone A (2004) Mislocations of touch to a fake hand. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:170–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Farmer H, Tajadura-Jiménez A, Tsakiris M (2012) Beyond the colour of my skin: how skin colour affects the sense of body-ownership. Conscious Cogn 21:1242–1256

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Maister L, Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Tsakiris M (2013) Experiencing ownership over a dark-skinned body reduces implicit racial bias. Cognition 128:170–178

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Haans A, IJsselsteijn WA, de Kort YAW (2008) The effect of similarities in skin texture and hand shape on perceived ownership of a fake limb. Body Image 5:389–394

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Pavani F, Zampini M (2007) The role of hand size in the fake-hand illusion paradigm. Perception 36:1547–1554

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Mussap AJ, Salton N (2006) A ‘rubber-hand’ illusion reveals a relationship between perceptual body image and unhealthy body change. J Health Psychol 11:627–639

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Moseley GL, Parsons TJ, Spence C (2008) Visual distortion of a limb modulates the pain and swelling evoked by movement. Curr Biol 18:R1047–R1048

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Hohwy J, Paton B (2010) Explaining away the body: experiences of supernaturally caused touch and touch on non-hand objects within the rubber hand illusion. PLoS One 5(2):e9416

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Tsakiris M, Haggard P (2005) The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:80–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Longo MR, Schüür F, Kammers MPM, Tsakiris M, Haggard P (2008) What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition 107:978–998

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Ehrsson HH, Holmes NP, Passingham RE (2005) Touching a rubber hand: feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas. J Neurosci 25:10564–10573

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ehrsson HH (2007) The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences. Science 317:1048

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ehrsson HH (2009) How many arms make a pair? Perceptual illusion of having an additional limb. Perception 38:310–312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Ehrsson HH, Wiech K, Weiskopf N, Dolan RJ, Passingham RE (2007) Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:9828–9833

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Guterstam A, Pektova VI, Ehrsson HH (2011) The illusion of owning a third arm. PLoS One 6:e17208

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Pektova VI, Ehrsson HH (2009) When right feels left: referral of touch and ownership between the hands. PLoS One 4:e6933

    Google Scholar 

  85. Lloyd DM, Morrison I, Roberts N (2006) Role for human posterior parietal cortex in visual processing of aversive objects in peripersonal space. J Neurophysiol 95:205–214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Kanayama N, Sato A, Ohira H (2007) Crossmodal effect with rubber hand illusion and gamma-band activity. Psychophysiology 44:392–402

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Walton M, Spence C (2004) Cross-modal congruency and visual capture in a visual elevation discrimination task. Exp Brain Res 154:113–120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Zopf R, Savage G, Williams MA (2010) Crossmodal congruency measures of lateral distance effects on the rubber hand illusion. Neuropsychologia 48:713–725

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Aspell JE, Lenggenhager B, Blanke O (2009) Keeping in touch with one’s self: multisensory mechanisms of self-consciousness. PLoS One 4(8):e6488

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Igarashi Y, Kitagawa N, Spence C, Ichihara S (2007) Assessing the influence of schematic drawings of body parts on tactile discrimination performance using the crossmodal congruency task. Acta Psychol (Amst) 124:190–208

    Google Scholar 

  91. Spence C, Pavani F, Maravita A, Holmes N (2004) Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuotactile peripersonal space in humans: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. J Physiol Paris 98:171–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Spence C, Pavani F, Maravita A, Holmes NP (2008) Multi-sensory interactions. In: Lin MC, Otaduy MA (eds) Haptic rendering: foundations, algorithms, and applications. AK Peters, Wellesley, pp 21–52

    Google Scholar 

  93. Rohde M, Di Luca M, Ernst MO (2011) The rubber hand illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS One 6(6):e21659

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Schütz-Bosbach S, Tausche P, Weiss C (2009) Roughness perception during the rubber hand illusion. Brain Cogn 70:136–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kammers MPM, Mulder J, de Vignemont F, Dijkerman HC (2010) The weight of representing the body: addressing the potentially indefinite number of body representations in healthy individuals. Exp Brain Res 204:333–342

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Parise CV, Spence C, Ernst M (2012) When correlation implies causation in multisensory integration. Curr Biol 22:46–49

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Shimojo S (1987) Attention-dependent visual capture in double vision. Perception 16:445–447

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Welch RB (1972) The effect of experienced limb identity upon adaptation to simulated displacement of the visual field. Percept Psychophys 12:453–456

    Google Scholar 

  99. Lloyd DM (2007) Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand. Brain Cogn 64:104–109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Germine L, Benson TL, Cohen F (2013) Psychosis-proneness and the rubber hand illusion of body ownership. Psychiatr Res 207:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  101. Serino A, Bassolino M, Farnè A, Làdavas E (2007) Extended multisensory space in blind cane users. Psychol Sci 18:642–648

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Holmes NP, Calvert GA, Spence C (2007) Tool use changes multisensory interactions in seconds: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. Exp Brain Res 183:465–476

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Capelari EDP, Uribe C, Brazil-Neto JP (2009) Feeling pain in the rubber hand: Integration of visual, proprioceptive, and painful stimuli. Perception 38:92–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Haans A, Kaiser FG, Bouwhuis DG, Ijsselsteijn WA (2012) Individual differences in the rubber-hand illusion: predicting self-reports of people’s personal experiences. Acta Psychol (Amst) 141:169–177

    Google Scholar 

  105. Tsakiris M, Tajadura-Jiménez A, Costantini M (2011) Just a heartbeat away from one’s body: interoceptive sensitivity predicts malleability of body-representations. Proc R Soc B 278:2470–2476

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Bekrater-Bodmann R, Foell J, Diers M, Flor H (2012) The perceptual and neuronal stability of the rubber hand illusion across contexts and over time. Brain Res 1452:130–139

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Folegatti A, Farnè A, Salemme R, de Vignemont F (2012) The rubber hand illusion: two’s a company, but three’s a crowd. Conscious Cogn 21:799–812

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Hari R, Hänninen R, Mäkinen T, Jousmaki V, Forss N, Seppä M, Salonen O (1998) Three hands: fragmentation of human bodily awareness. Neurosci Lett 240:131–134

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Newport R, Pearce R, Preston C (2009) Fake hands in action: embodiment and control of supernumerary limbs. Exp Brain Res 204:385–395

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33:61–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Cowie D, Makin T, Bremner AJ (2013) Children’s responses to the rubber hand illusion reveal dissociable pathways in body representations. Psychol Sci 24:762–769

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Graziano MSA (1999) Where is my arm? The relative role of vision and proprioception in the neuronal representation of limb position. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96:10418–10421

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Löken LS, Wessberg J, Morrison I, McGlone F, Olausson H (2009) Coding of pleasant touch by unmyelinated afferents in humans. Nat Neurosci 12:547–548

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Olausson H, Lamarre Y, Backlund H, Morin C, Wallin BG, Starck G, Ekholm S, Strigo I, Worsley K, Vallbo AB, Bushnell MC (2002) Unmyelinated tactile afferents signal touch and project to insular cortex. Nat Neurosci 5:900–904

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Costantini M, Haggard P (2007) The rubber hand illusion: sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Conscious Cogn 16:229–240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Makin TR, Holmes NP, Ehrsson HH (2008) On the other hand: dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behav Brain Res 191:1–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Dummer T, Picot-Annand A, Neal T, Moore C (2009) Movement and the rubber hand illusion. Perception 38:271–280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Nielsen TI (1963) Volition: a new experimental approach. Scand J Psychol 4:225–230

    Google Scholar 

  119. Snijders HJ, Holmes NP, Spence C (2007) Direction-dependent integration of vision and proprioception in reaching movements under the influence of the mirror illusion. Neuropsychologia 45:496–505

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Ijsselsteijn WA, de Kort YAW, Haans A (2005) Is this my hand I see before me? The rubber hand illusion in reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality. Presence 15:455–464

    Google Scholar 

  121. Schaefer M, Flor H, Heinze H-J, Rotte M (2006) Dynamic modulation of the primary somatosensory cortex during seeing and feeling a touched hand. Neuroimage 29:587–592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Shimada S, Fukuda K, Hiraki K (2009) Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback. PLoS One 4(7):e6185

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Tsakiris M, Prabhu G, Haggard P (2006) Having a body versus moving your body: How agency structures body-ownership. Conscious Cogn 15:423–432

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Raz L, Weiss PL, Reiner M (2008) The virtual hand illusion and body ownership. In: Ferre M (ed) Eurohaptics 2008, vol 5024, LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 367–372

    Google Scholar 

  125. Slater M, Perez-Marcos D, Ehrsson HH, Sanchez-Vives MV (2009) Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body. Front Neurosci 3(2):214–220

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Bremner AJ, Hill E, Pratt M, Spence C (2013) Bodily illusions in young children: developmental change in visual and proprioceptive contributions to perceived hand position. PLoS One 8(1):e51887

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Kammers M, de Vignemont F, Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC (2009) The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia 47:204–211

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D (1996) Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 263:377–386

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D (2007) It’s all done with mirror. Scientific American Mind, August/September, 16–17

    Google Scholar 

  130. Fotopoulou A, Jenkinson PM, Tsakiris M, Haggard P, Rudd A, Kopelman MD (2011) Mirror-view reverses somatoparaphrenia: dissociation between first- and third-person perspectives on body ownership. Neuropsychologia 49:3946–3955

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Newport R, Gilpin HR (2011) Multisensory disintegration and the disappearing hand trick. Curr Biol 21:R804–R805

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Moseley L, Gallace A, Spence C (2008) Is mirror therapy all it is cracked up to be? Current evidence and future directions. Pain 138:7–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Hay JC, Pick HL Jr, Ikeda K (1965) Visual capture produced by prism spectacles. Psychon Sci 2:215–216

    Google Scholar 

  134. Wallach H, Kravitz JH, Landauer J (1963) A passive condition for rapid adaptation to displaced visual direction. Am J Psychol 76:568–578

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Welch RB, Widawski MH, Harrington J, Warren DH (1979) An examination of the relationship between visual capture and prism adaptation. Percept Psychophys 25:126–132

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Moseley GL, Olthof N, Venema A, Don S, Wijers M, Gallace A, Spence C (2008) Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:13168–13172

    Google Scholar 

  137. Kammers MPM, Rose K, Haggard P (2011) Feeling numb: temperature, but not thermal pain, modulates feeling of body ownership. Neurospsychologia 49:1316–1321

    Google Scholar 

  138. Symons FJ, Sutton KA, Bodfish JW (2001) Preliminary study of altered skin temperature at body sites associated with self-injurious behavior in adults who have developmental disabilities. Am J Ment Retard 106:336–343

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Barnsley N, McAuley JH, Mohan R, Dey A, Thomas P, Moseley GL (2011) The rubber hand illusion increases histamine reactivity in the real arm. Curr Biol 21:R945–R946

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Moseley GL, Gallace A, Spence C (2012) Bodily illusions in health and disease: physiological and clinical perspectives and the concept of a cortical ‘body matrix’. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:34–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Tsakiris M, Hesse MD, Boy C, Haggard P, Fink GR (2006) Neural signatures of body ownership: a sensory network for bodily self-consciousness. Cereb Cortex 17:2235–2244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Tsakiris M, Costantini M, Haggard P (2008) The role of the right temporoparietal junction in maintaining a coherent sense of one’s body. Neuropsychologia 46:3014–3018

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Kammers MPM, Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC, Hogendoorn H, de Vignemont F, Schutter DJLG (2009) Is this hand for real? Attenuation of the rubber hand illusion by transcranial magnetic stimulation over the inferior parietal lobule. J Cogn Neurosci 21:1311–1320

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Zeller D, Gross C, Bartsch A, Johansen-Berg H, Classen J (2011) Ventral premotor cortex may be required for dynamic changes in the feeling of limb ownership: a lesion study. J Neurosci 31:4852–4857

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Holmes NP, Spence C, Hansen PC, Mackay CE, Calvert GA (2008) The multisensory attentional consequences of tool-use: an fMRI study. PLoS One 3(10):e3502

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Tipper SP, Lloyd D, Shorland B, Dancer C, Howard LA, McGlone F (1998) Vision influences tactile perception without proprioceptive orienting. Neuroreport 9:1741–1744

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Tipper SP, Phillips N, Dancer C, Lloyd D, Howard LA, McGlone F (2001) Vision influences tactile perception at body sites that cannot be viewed directly. Exp Brain Res 139:160–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Murray CD, Fox J (2002) Body image and prosthesis satisfaction in the lower limb amputee. Disabil Rehabil 24:925–931

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Wetz HH, Gisbertz D (2000) Historical development of prosthetics for the lower limb. Orthopaedics 29:1018

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Psychology, Crossmodal Research Laboratory, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD, UK

    Charles Spence

Authors
  1. Charles Spence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Spence .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Systems Neuroscience Section, Department of Rehabilitation for Brain Functions, Research Institute of National, Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities, Tokorozawa, Japan

    Kenji Kansaku

  2. Human Cortical Physiology and Stroke Neu, National Institute of Neurological Disor National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Leonardo G. Cohen

  3. Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Niels Birbaumer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Japan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Spence, C. (2015). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Incorporation: Body Image Adjustment and Neuroprosthetics. In: Kansaku, K., Cohen, L., Birbaumer, N. (eds) Clinical Systems Neuroscience. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55037-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55037-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo

  • Print ISBN: 978-4-431-55036-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-4-431-55037-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation