Brief articleSeeing the body distorts tactile size perception
Introduction
Both vision and somatosensation provide important sources of information about our body. Therefore, combining multisensory inputs is critical to perceiving the properties and current state of the body. Recent results have demonstrated widespread effects of vision of the body on somatosensation, even when entirely non-informative about stimulation, for example by enhancing tactile spatial acuity (Kennett, Taylor-Clarke, & Haggard, 2001) and reducing pain (Longo, Betti, Aglioti, & Haggard, 2009). Such results show that seeing the body can increase the sensitivity of somatosensory processing, or alter perceived intensity of somatosensory stimuli. But does vision also distort touch, altering its perceived metric properties? Here, we addressed this question, investigating how vision of the body affects the perceived size of tactile stimuli applied to the seen body part.
How might vision of the body distort tactile size perception? Intriguingly, two sets of considerations lead to opposite predictions. Weber (1834/1996) originally noted that the perceived distance between two tactile stimuli is larger on skin regions with relatively high sensitivity compared to those with lower sensitivity, an effect now known as Weber’s illusion (Taylor-Clarke, Jacobsen, & Haggard, 2004). Since seeing the body increases tactile sensitivity (Kennett et al., 2001), it is thus natural to hypothesize that this should lead to a corresponding increase in the perceived size of tactile stimuli. Indeed, this was our initial hypothesis. There is, however, another set of considerations which point in the opposite direction, suggesting that reduced tactile sensitivity can be associated with increased perceived size of the body and of touch. For example, cutting off afferent signals from a body part with local anesthesia increases the perceived size of that body part (Gandevia and Phegan, 1999, Türker et al., 2005) as well as the perceived size of objects held in the affected body part (Berryman, Yau, & Hsiao, 2006). Similarly, chronic pain often produces both reduced tactile sensitivity on the affected body part (Moseley, 2008, Pleger et al., 2006), as well as perceived swelling (Moseley, 2005, Moseley, 2008, Pelz et al., 2011). In the case of both anesthesia and pain, reduced tactile sensitivity is associated with increased perceived body part size. Vision of the body, then, could be expected to produce exactly opposite effects: since seeing the body enhances tactile sensitivity it should reduce the perceived size of the body and also shrink the perceived size of tactile stimuli.
We investigated this question using the mirror box illusion (Ramachandran, Rogers-Ramachandran, & Cobb, 1995) to induce the subjective experience of direct vision of the stimulated left hand, while simultaneously keeping vision non-informative about stimulation. In Experiment 1, participants made verbal judgments of the distance between two touches applied to the dorsum of their left hand, while looking into a mirror aligned with their body midline, with their hands symmetrically on either size of the mirror. The reflection of their right hand, thus appeared to be a direct view of their left hand, yet provided no information about the size of touch. In control conditions, participants looked at the mirror reflection of a non-hand object or at their non-stimulated right hand. To anticipate our results, we found that seeing the body reduces the perceived size of touch. In Experiment 2 we replicated this finding and additionally added a measure of perceived hand size before and after each block, finding no apparent change in any condition.
Section snippets
Participants
Fifty-eight individuals (37 females) between 18 and 72 years of age participated, 30 in Experiment 1 and 28 in Experiment 2. Participants were right-handed as assessed by the Edinburgh Inventory (Oldfield, 1971; M: 91.3).
Materials and procedure
Participants sat at a table in front of a mirror aligned with their body midline (see Fig. 1). Velcro disks on the table (20 cm on either side of the mirror) indicated where the index finger of each hand should be placed. There were three visual contexts: (1) in the View
Illusion questionnaire
Questionnaire results are shown in Fig. 2. Participants reported agreement with item 1 in both the View Stimulated Hand (Exp. 1: t(29) = 2.37, p < .05; Exp. 2: t(27) = 5.85, p < .0001), and View Other Hand (Exp. 1: t(29) = 30.54, p < .0001; Exp. 2: t(27) = 26.70, p < .0001), conditions, but significant disagreement in the View Object condition (Exp. 1: t(29) = −13.26, p < .0001; Exp. 2: t(27) = −16.81, p < .0001). Participants reported agreement with item 2 in both the View Stimulated Hand (Exp. 1: t(29) = 11.03, p <
Discussion
Vision of the body, though completely non-informative about stimulation, modulated tactile size perception. The illusion of seeing the stimulated hand reduced the perceived distance between pairs of tactile stimuli, compared to seeing a non-hand object. Seeing the contralateral hand produced an intermediate effect. Unlike previous results, showing that vision of the body alters perceptual sensitivity (Harris et al., 2007, Kennett et al., 2001), the present findings show that vision actively
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant to MRL from the School of Science, Birkbeck, University of London.
References (28)
- et al.
Haptic perception after a change in hand size
Neuropsychologia
(2010) - et al.
Bodily illusions modulate tactile perception
Current Biology
(2005) - et al.
Noninformative vision improves the spatial resolution of touch in humans
Current Biology
(2001) - et al.
Implicit body representations and the conscious body image
Acta Psychologica
(2012) - et al.
Vision of the body modulates processing in primary somatosensory cortex
Neuroscience Letters
(2011) I can’t find it! Distorted body image and tactile dysfunction in patients with chronic back pain
Pain
(2008)The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory
Neuropsychologia
(1971)- et al.
Patterns of cortical reorganization parallel tactile discrimination and pain intensity in complex regional pain syndrome
NeuroImage
(2006) - et al.
Vision modulates somatosensory cortical processing
Current Biology
(2002) - et al.
Grasping Weber’s illusion: The effect of receptor density differences on grasping and matching
Cognitive Neuropsychology
(2008)
Representation of object size in the somatosensory system
Journal of Neurophysiology
C-fibres provide a source of masking inhibition to primary somatosensory cortex
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B
Vision of the body modulates somatosensory intracortical inhibition
Cerebral Cortex
Perceptual distortions of the human body image produced by local anaesthesia, pain and cutaneous stimulation
Journal of Physiology
Cited by (48)
Anisotropy in tactile time perception
2020, CortexCitation Excerpt :Our perception depends on the operating properties of our sensory receptors, and it is often intrinsically distorted due to particular characteristics of sensory receptors. Spatial distortions in touch have been demonstrated since the 19th century for across body parts (Anema, Wolswijk, Ruis, & Dijkerman, 2008; de Vignemont, Majid, Jola, & Haggard, 2009; Goudge, 1919; Green, 1982; Longo & Sadibolova, 2013; Marks et al., 1982; Miller, Longo, & Saygin, 2016; Taylor-Clarke, Jacobsen, & Haggard, 2004; Weber, 1996) and even within a single body part (Fiori & Longo, 2018; Green, 1982; Le Cornu Knight, Longo, & Bremner, 2014; Longo, Ghosh, & Yahya, 2015; Longo & Haggard, 2011; Stone, Keizer, & Dijkerman, 2018). The perceived distance on the hairy skin surface of a hand (dorsum side), for example, is approximately 40% bigger when the stimuli are aligned with the medio-lateral axis (across hand axis) compared to the proximo-distal axis (along hand axis) (Longo & Haggard, 2011) (Fig. 1A).
Body representation does not lag behind in updating for the pubertal growth spurt
2018, Journal of Experimental Child PsychologyCitation Excerpt :With this new method, we find overestimations as large as 56%. In previous experiments with the TET, average estimations have varied greatly (e.g., Anema, Wolswijk, Ruis, & Dijkerman, 2008; Keizer et al., 2011, 2012; Longo & Sadibolova, 2013; Scarpina et al., 2014). This might be partly caused by differences in which reference frame is employed to encode the response.
Skin Stretch Modulates Tactile Distance Perception Without Central Correction Mechanisms
2022, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and PerformanceSize Constancy Mechanisms: Empirical Evidence from Touch
2022, Vision (Switzerland)The distorted body: The perception of the relative proportions of the body is preserved in Parkinson’s disease
2022, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review