peripersonal space
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

365
(FIVE YEARS 143)

H-INDEX

46
(FIVE YEARS 4)

2022 ◽  
Vol 98 ◽  
pp. 103267
Author(s):  
Elena Gherri ◽  
Marios Theocharopoulos ◽  
Niall Browne ◽  
Nazire Duran ◽  
Elizabeth J. Austin

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adna Bliek ◽  
Robin Bekrater-Bodmann ◽  
Philipp Beckerle

Using the seminal rubber hand illusion and related paradigms, the last two decades unveiled the multisensory mechanisms underlying the sense of limb embodiment, that is, the cognitive integration of an artificial limb into one's body representation. Since also individuals with amputations can be induced to embody an artificial limb by multimodal sensory stimulation, it can be assumed that the involved computational mechanisms are universal and independent of the perceiver's physical integrity. This is anything but trivial, since experimentally induced embodiment has been related to the embodiment of prostheses in limb amputees, representing a crucial rehabilitative goal with clinical implications. However, until now there is no unified theoretical framework to explain limb embodiment in structurally varying bodies. In the present work, we suggest extensions of the existing Bayesian models on limb embodiment in normally-limbed persons in order to apply them to the specific situation in limb amputees lacking the limb as physical effector. We propose that adjusted weighting of included parameters of a unified modeling framework, rather than qualitatively different model structures for normally-limbed and amputated individuals, is capable of explaining embodiment in structurally varying bodies. Differences in the spatial representation of the close environment (peripersonal space) and the limb (phantom limb awareness) as well as sensorimotor learning processes associated with limb loss and the use of prostheses might be crucial modulators for embodiment of artificial limbs in individuals with limb amputation. We will discuss implications of our extended Bayesian model for basic research and clinical contexts.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Caprara ◽  
Peter Janssen

Abstract To perform tasks like grasping, the brain has to process visual object information so that the grip aperture can be adjusted before touching the object. Previous studies have demonstrated that the posterior subsector of the Anterior Intraparietal area (pAIP) is connected to area 45B, and its anterior counterpart (aAIP) to F5a. However, the role of area 45B and F5a in visually-guided grasping is poorly understood. Here, we investigated the role of area 45B, F5a and F5p in object processing during visually-guided grasping in two monkeys. If the presentation of an object activates a motor command related to the preshaping of the hand, as in F5p, such neurons should prefer objects presented within reachable distance. Conversely, neurons encoding a purely visual representation of an object – possibly in area 45B and F5a – should be less affected by viewing distance. Contrary to our expectations, we found that most neurons in area 45B were object- and viewing distance-selective (mostly Near-preferring). Area F5a showed much weaker object selectivity compared to 45B, with a similar preference for objects presented at the Near position. Finally, F5p neurons were less object selective and frequently Far-preferring. In sum, area 45B – but not F5p– prefers objects presented in peripersonal space.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack De Havas ◽  
Sho Ito ◽  
Sven Bestmann ◽  
Hiroaki Gomi

The sensation of directional forces and their associated sensorimotor commands are inextricably intertwined, complicating the identification of brain circuits responsible for tactile pulling sensations. One hypothesis is that, like tactile frequency discrimination, pulling sensations are generated by early sensory-frontal activity. Alternatively, they may be generated later in the somatosensory association cortex. To dissociate these accounts and uncouple the pulling sensation from unrelated but correlated sensory and motor processing, we combined high-density EEG with an oddball paradigm and asymmetric vibration, which creates an illusory sensation of the hand being directionally pulled. Oddballs that created a pulling sensation in the opposite direction to common stimuli were compared to the same oddballs in the context of neutral common stimuli (symmetric vibration) and to neutral oddballs. Brain responses to having directional pulling expectations violated by directional stimuli were therefore isolated. Contrary to the sensory-frontal account, frontal N140 brain activity was actually larger for neutral than pulling oddballs. Instead, pulling sensations were associated with amplitude and latency modulations of midline P200 and P3b potentials, and specifically, to contralateral parietal lobe activity 280ms post-stimulus. The timing of this activity suggested pulling sensations involve spatial processing, such as tactile remapping between coordinate frames. Source localization showed this activity to be centered on the postcentral sulcus, superior parietal lobule and intraparietal sulcus, suggesting that pulling sensations arise via the processing of body position, tactile orientation and peripersonal space. Our results demonstrate how tactile illusions can uniquely disambiguate parietal contributions to somatosensation by removing unrelated sensory processing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Rossi ◽  
Gionata Salvietti ◽  
Francesco Neri ◽  
Sara M. Romanella ◽  
Alessandra Cinti ◽  
...  

AbstractIt is likely that when using an artificially augmented hand with six fingers, the natural five plus a robotic one, corticospinal motor synergies controlling grasping actions might be different. However, no direct neurophysiological evidence for this reasonable assumption is available yet. We used transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex to directly address this issue during motor imagery of objects’ grasping actions performed with or without the Soft Sixth Finger (SSF). The SSF is a wearable robotic additional thumb patented for helping patients with hand paresis and inherent loss of thumb opposition abilities. To this aim, we capitalized from the solid notion that neural circuits and mechanisms underlying motor imagery overlap those of physiological voluntary actions. After a few minutes of training, healthy humans wearing the SSF rapidly reshaped the pattern of corticospinal outputs towards forearm and hand muscles governing imagined grasping actions of different objects, suggesting the possibility that the extra finger might rapidly be encoded into the user’s body schema, which is integral part of the frontal-parietal grasping network. Such neural signatures might explain how the motor system of human beings is open to very quickly welcoming emerging augmentative bioartificial corticospinal grasping strategies. Such an ability might represent the functional substrate of a final common pathway the brain might count on towards new interactions with the surrounding objects within the peripersonal space. Findings provide a neurophysiological framework for implementing augmentative robotic tools in humans and for the exploitation of the SSF in conceptually new rehabilitation settings.


Author(s):  
Valentina Moro ◽  
Michela Corbella ◽  
Silvio Ionta ◽  
Federico Ferrari ◽  
Michele Scandola

Paraplegia following spinal cord injury (SCI) affects the mental representation and peripersonal space of the paralysed body parts (i.e., lower limbs). Physical rehabilitation programs can improve these aspects, but the benefits are mostly partial and short-lasting. These limits could be due to the absence of trainings focused on SCI-induced cognitive deficits combined with traditional physical rehabilitation. To test this hypothesis, we assessed in 15 SCI-individuals the effects of adding cognitive recovery protocols (motor imagery–MI) to standard physical rehabilitation programs (Motor+MI training) on mental body representations and space representations, with respect to physical rehabilitation alone (control training). Each training comprised at least eight sessions administered over two weeks. The status of participants' mental body representation and peripersonal space was assessed at three time points: before the training (T0), after the training (T1), and in a follow-up assessment one month later (T2). The Motor+MI training induced short-term recovery of peripersonal space that however did not persist at T2. Body representation showed a slower neuroplastic recovery at T2, without differences between Motor and the Motor+MI. These results show that body and space representations are plastic after lesions, and open new rehabilitation perspectives.


Cortex ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Ronga ◽  
M. Galigani ◽  
V. Bruno ◽  
N. Castellani ◽  
A. Rossi Sebastiano ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. 121-126
Author(s):  
Anna Berti

AbstractYears ago, it was demonstrated (e.g., Rizzolatti et al. in Handbook of neuropsychology, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2000) that the brain does not encode the space around us in a homogeneous way, but through neural circuits that map the space relative to the distance that objects of interest have from the body. In monkeys, relatively discrete neural systems, characterized by neurons with specific neurophysiological responses, seem to be dedicated either to represent the space that can be reached by the hand (near/peripersonal space) or to the distant space (far/extrapersonal space). It was also shown that the encoding of spaces has dynamic aspects because they can be remapped by the use of tools that trigger different actions (e.g., Iriki et al. 1998). In this latter case, the effect of the tool depends on the modulation of personal space, that is the space of our body. In this paper, I will review and discuss selected research, which demonstrated that also in humans: 1 spaces are encoded in a dynamic way; 2 encoding can be modulated by the use of tool that the system comes to consider as parts of the own body; 3 body representations are not fixed, but they are fragile and subject to change to the point that we can incorporate not only the tools necessary for action, but even limbs belonging to other people. What embodiment of tools and of alien limb tell us about body representations is then briefly discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document