Typical biomechanical bias in the perception of congenitally absent hands
Typical biomechanical bias in the perception of congenitally absent hands
复制标题
先天性缺手感知中的典型生物力学偏差
DOI：
10.1016/j.cortex.2015.02.015
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
A. Caramazza
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Vannuscorps;A. Caramazza
有令人信服的证据表明，我们对他人身体和动作的感知是由几个规则和约束塑造的，例如身体运动的生物力学，最初被认为只影响实际动作的控制和执行（Grosjean，Shiffrar，& Knoblich，2007; Parsons，1987; Shiffrar & 3 Freyd，1993）。对于许多作者来说，这表明对他人身体和运动的感知4是由我们自己身体的体感和运动表征支持的（Grush，2004; Hommel，Müsseler，5 Aschersleben，& Prinz，2001; Wilson & Knoblich，2005）。因此，6种身体约束对身体感知的影响的存在或不存在越来越多地分别用作运动执行障碍患者的动作产生的隐蔽阶段的完整性或损伤的指标（例如，Conson，8佩斯托亚，Sarà，Grossi，& Trojan，2010; Conson等人，二〇一三年; de Lange，Roelofs，& Toni，2008; Fioro，Tinazzi，9 & Aglioti，2006; Helmich，de Lange，Bloem，& Toni，2007; Munzert，Lorey，& Zengraf，2009; Nico，Daprati，10 Rigal，Parsons，& Sirigu，2004）.例如，由于左侧大脑性麻痹患者在判断所呈现的手绘图的偏侧性时的反应延迟与手部构型的生物力学难度正相关，但右侧大脑性麻痹患者的反应延迟与手部构型的生物力学难度不相关，因此得出结论，只有后一组患者患有运动规划缺陷（Mutsaarts，斯滕贝尔根，& Bekkering，14 2007）. 15然而，这些生物力学约束偏差可能只是反映了视觉感知系统16如何处理和表示人体（Shiffrar & Freyd，1993; Tessari，Ottoboni，Symes，& Cubelli，2010; 17 Vannuscorps，Pillon，& Andres，2012）。这种替代方案的证据主要来自观察，即18两个出生时上肢严重缩小的个体（先天性双侧上肢嗅觉障碍）在被要求提供关于手部姿势和上肢运动的感知判断时也显示出生物力学偏差（AZ：Brugger等人，2000; Funk & Brugger，2008; Funk，Shiffrar & Brugger，2005; DC：21 Vannuscorps等人，2012年）。然而，来自这些研究的证据可能受到质疑，因为22名DC和AZ有上肢残端，因此并没有完全剥夺23个上肢的运动经验（及其运动表征）。此外，AZ呈现了一种罕见的轮廓，即她能够故意“移动”的缺失身体部位的非常生动的幻肢感觉，使她的病例难以解释。26
There is compelling evidence that our perception of others’ bodies and movements is shaped by several 1 rules and constraints, such as the biomechanics of body movement, originally thought to affect only the 2 control and execution of actual movements (Grosjean, Shiffrar, & Knoblich, 2007; Parsons, 1987; Shiffrar & 3 Freyd, 1993). For numerous authors, this demonstrates that the perception of others’ bodies and movements 4 is supported by somatosensory and motor representations of our own body (Grush, 2004; Hommel, Müsseler, 5 Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001; Wilson & Knoblich, 2005). Accordingly, the presence or absence of effects of 6 body constraints on body perception is increasingly used as an index of, respectively, the integrity or 7 impairment of covert stages of action production in patients with motor execution disabilities (eg, Conson, 8 Pistoia, Sarà, Grossi, & Trojan, 2010; Conson et al., 2013; de Lange, Roelofs, & Toni, 2008; Fioro, Tinazzi, 9 & Aglioti, 2006; Helmich, de Lange, Bloem, & Toni, 2007; Munzert, Lorey, & Zengraf, 2009; Nico, Daprati, 10 Rigal, Parsons, & Sirigu, 2004). For example, because the response latencies of patients with left cerebral 11 palsy in judging the laterality of presented hand drawings are positively correlated with biomechanical 12 difficulty of the hand configurations, but not those of patients with right cerebral palsy, it was concluded that 13 only the latter group of patients suffer from a motor planning deficit (Mutsaarts, Steenbergen, & Bekkering, 14 2007). 15However, these biomechanical constraints biases might simply reflect how the visuo-perceptual system 16 processes and represents human bodies (Shiffrar & Freyd, 1993; Tessari, Ottoboni, Symes, & Cubelli, 2010; 17 Vannuscorps, Pillon, & Andres, 2012). Evidence for this alternative comes mainly from the observation that 18 two individuals born with severely reduced upper limbs (congenital bilateral upper limb dysmelia) also 19 showed biomechanical biases when asked to provide perceptual judgments about hand postures and upper 20 limb movements (AZ: Brugger et al., 2000; Funk & Brugger, 2008; Funk, Shiffrar & Brugger, 2005; DC: 21 Vannuscorps et al., 2012). The evidence from those studies, however, could be challenged on the ground that 22 DC and AZ had upper limb stumps and, therefore, were not totally deprived of motor experience with the 23 upper limbs (and motor representations thereof). In addition, AZ presented with a rare profile of very vivid 24 phantom sensations of the missing body parts that she was able to intentionally “move”, making her case 25 difficult to interpret. 26