Abstract

Recent studies have suggested that people’s intent and ability to act also can influence their perception of their bodies’ peripersonal space. Vice versa one could assume that the inability to reach toward and grasp an object might have an impact on the subject’s perception of reaching distance. Here we tested this prediction by investigating body size and action capability perception of neurological patients suffering from arm paresis after stroke, comparing 32 right-brain-damaged patients (13 with left-sided arm paresis without additional spatial neglect, 10 with left-sided arm paresis and additional spatial neglect, 9 patients had neither arm paresis nor neglect) and 27 healthy controls. Nineteen of the group of right hemisphere stroke patients could be re-examined about five months after initial injury. Arm length was estimated in three different methodological approaches: explicit visual, explicit tactile/proprioceptive, and implicit reaching. Results fulfilled the working hypothesis. Patients with an arm paresis indeed perceived their bodies differently. We found a transient overestimation of the length of the contralesional, paretic arm after stroke. Body size and action capability perception for the extremities thus indeed seem to be tightly linked in humans.

Highlights

  • Perception and action are closely intertwined processes

  • Thirteen of them suffered from a left-sided arm paresis without additional spatial neglect (PARESIS), ten showed left-sided arm paresis and additional spatial neglect (PARESIS+NEG), and 9 patients had no arm paresis and no neglect

  • The present study aimed to investigate body size and action capability perception for the extremities of neurological patients suffering from arm paresis after stroke

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Perception and action are closely intertwined processes. Recent studies have found that people’s intent and ability to act can influence their perception of (peripersonal) space. It has been observed that holding a tool influences judged distance to the target [3, 4]. Holding the tool influenced perceived distance only if subjects intended to reach the target with the tool. If they held the tool but had no intention to reach, the targets were judged the same distance as if they did not hold the tool.

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.