title: When action is not enough: tool-use reveals tactile-dependent access to Body Schema.
abstract: Proper motor control of our own body implies a reliable representation of body parts. This information is supposed to be stored in the Body Schema (BS), a body representation that appears separate from a more perceptual body representation, the Body Image (BI). The dissociation between BS for action and BI for perception, originally based on neuropsychological evidence, has recently become the focus of behavioural studies in physiological conditions. By inducing the rubber hand illusion in healthy participants, Kammers et al. (2009) showed perceptual changes attributable to the BI to which the BS, as indexed via motor tasks, was immune. To more definitively support the existence of dissociable body representations in physiological conditions, here we tested for the opposite dissociation, namely, whether a tool-use paradigm would induce a functional update of the BS (via a motor localization task) without affecting the BI (via a perceptual localization task). Healthy subjects were required to localize three anatomical landmarks on their right arm, before and after using the same arm to control a tool. In addition to this classical task-dependency approach, we assessed whether preferential access to the BS could also depend upon the way positional information about forearm targets is provided, to subsequently execute the same task. To this aim, participants performed either verbally or tactually driven versions of the motor and perceptual localization tasks. Results showed that both the motor and perceptual tasks were sensitive to the update of the forearm representation, but only when the localization task (perceptual or motor) was driven by a tactile input. This pattern reveals that the motor output is not sufficient per se, but has to be coupled with tactually mediated information to guarantee access to the BS. These findings shade a new light on the action-perception models of body representations and underlie how functional plasticity may be a useful tool to clarify their operational definition.
authors.affiliation: INSERM U1028, CNRS UMR5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research Centre, ImpAct Team, Lyon, France. lucilla.cardinali@inserm.fr
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Cardinali
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Brozzoli
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Urquizar
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Salemme
authors.forename: A C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Roy
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Farnè
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D005121:Extremities; D005260:Female; D018594:Human Body; D006801:Humans; D007088:Illusions / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D009048:Motor Skills / Q000502:physiology*; D009275:Names; D010812:Physical Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D012683:Sensory Deprivation; D014110:Touch / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult