4.2 Article

The weight of representing the body: addressing the potentially indefinite number of body representations in healthy individuals

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 204, Issue 3, Pages 333-342

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-2009-9

Keywords

Bayesian model selection; Body representations; Multimodal integration; Rubber hand illusion

Categories

Funding

  1. ANR [JCJC06 133960]
  2. VIDI [452-03-325]
  3. Medical Research Council/Economic and Social Research Council (MRC/ESRC) [G0800056/86947]
  4. MRC [G0800056] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G0800056] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is little consensus about the characteristics and number of body representations in the brain. In the present paper, we examine the main problems that are encountered when trying to dissociate multiple body representations in healthy individuals with the use of bodily illusions. Traditionally, task-dependent bodily illusion effects have been taken as evidence for dissociable underlying body representations. Although this reasoning holds well when the dissociation is made between different types of tasks that are closely linked to different body representations, it becomes problematic when found within the same response task (i.e., within the same type of representation). Hence, this experimental approach to investigating body representations runs the risk of identifying as many different body representations as there are significantly different experimental outputs. Here, we discuss and illustrate a different approach to this pluralism by shifting the focus towards investigating task-dependency of illusion outputs in combination with the type of multisensory input. Finally, we present two examples of behavioural bodily illusion experiments and apply Bayesian model selection to illustrate how this different approach of dissociating and classifying multiple body representations can be applied.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available