Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of a pre-existing body-model that is an enabling constraint for the incorporation of objects into the body. This body-model is also a basis for the distinction between body extensions (e.g., in the case of tool-use) and incorporation (e.g., in the case of successful prosthesis use). It is argued that, in the case of incorporation, changes in the sense of body-ownership involve a reorganization of the body-model, whereas extension of the body with tools does not involve changes in the sense of body-ownership.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlucchi, G., & Aglioti, S. (1997). The body in the brain: Neural bases of corporeal awareness. Trends in Neurosciences, 20, 560–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanke, O., Ortigue, S., Landis, T., & Seeck, M. (2002) Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Nature, 419, 269–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Carruthers, G. (2008). Types of body representation and the sense of embodiment. Consciousness & Cognition, 17(4), 1302–1316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, M., & Haggard, P. (2007). The rubber hand illusion: Sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Consciousness & Cognition, 16(2), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, M. S. A., Cooke, D. F., & Taylor, C. S. R. (2000). Coding the location of the arm by sight. Science, 290, 1782–1786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1962 [1927]). Being and time (transl. Macquarrie J, Robinson E). London: : Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport, 7, 2325–2330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maravita, A., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2003). Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Current Biology, 13, R531–R539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenology of perception (transl. C. Smith). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R., & Rochat, P. (1997). Intermodal calibration of the body in early infancy. Ecological Psychology, 9, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C. D. (2004). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(16), 963–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato (2003). Phaedrus (transl. Scully, S.). Newburyport: Focus.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, R., & Wexler, A. (2005). Making sense of another mind: the role of the right temporo-parietal junction. Neuropsychologia, 43(10), 1391–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwoebel, J., & Coslett, H. B. (2005). Evidence for multiple, distinct representations of the human body. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(4), 543–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1. The fault of epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

HDP was supported by a research grant by the University College Ghent. MT was supported by the ‘‘European Platform for Life Sciences, Mind Sciences, and the Humanities” grant by the Volkswagen Stiftung for the ‘‘Body-Project: interdisciplinary investigations on bodily experiences”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Fine Arts, University College Ghent, J. Kluyskensstraat 6, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Helena De Preester

  2. Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Helena De Preester

  3. Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Surrey, TW20 0 EX, UK

    Manos Tsakiris

Authors
  1. Helena De Preester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manos Tsakiris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helena De Preester.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Preester, H., Tsakiris, M. Body-extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model?. Phenom Cogn Sci 8, 307–319 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-009-9121-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-009-9121-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation