Turning configural processing upside down: Part and whole body postures

Like faces, body postures are susceptible to an inversion effect in untrained viewers. The inversion effect may be indicative of configural processing, but what kind of configural processing is used for the recognition of body postures must be specified. The information available in the body stimulus was manipulated. The presence and magnitude of inversion effects were compared for body parts, scrambled bodies, and body halves relative to whole bodies and to corresponding conditions for faces and houses. Results suggest that configural body posture recognition relies on the structural hierarchy of body parts, not the parts themselves or a complete template match. Configural recognition of body postures based on information about the structural hierarchy of parts defines an important point on the configural processing continuum, between recognition based on first-order spatial relations and recognition based on holistic undifferentiated template matching.

Perception of faces and bodies: Similar or different?

Human faces and bodies are both complex and interesting perceptual objects, and both convey important social information. Given these similarities between faces and bodies, we can ask how similar are the visual processing mechanisms used to recognize them. It has long been argued that faces are subject to dedicated and unique perceptual processes, but until recently, relatively little research has focused on how we perceive the human. body. Some recent paradigms indicate that faces and bodies are processed differently; others show similarities in face and body perception. These similarities and differences depend on the type of perceptual task and the level of processing involved. Future research should take these issues into account.

Experimental hand pain delays recognition of the contralateral hand: Evidence that acute and chronic pain have opposite effects on information processing?

Recognising the laterality of a pictured hand involves making an initial decision and confirming that choice by mentally moving one's own hand to match the picture. This depends on an intact body schema. Because patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS1) take longer to recognise a hand's laterality when it corresponds to their affected hand, it has been proposed that nociceptive input disrupts the body schema. However, chronic pain is associated with physiological and psychosocial complexities that may also explain the results. In three studies, we investigated whether the effect is simply due to nociceptive input. Study one evaluated the temporal and perceptual characteristics of acute hand pain elicited by intramuscular injection of hypertonic saline into the thenar eminence. In studies two and three, subjects performed a hand laterality recognition task before, during, and after acute experimental hand pain, and experimental elbow pain, respectively. During hand pain and during elbow pain, when the laterality of the pictured hand corresponded to the painful side, there was no effect on response time (RT). That suggests that nociceptive input alone is not sufficient to disrupt the working body schema. Conversely to patients with CRPS1, when the laterality of the pictured hand corresponded to the non-painful hand, RT increased similar to 380 ms (95% confidence interval 190 ms-590 ms). The results highlight the differences between acute and chronic pain and may reflect a bias in information processing in acute pain toward the affected part.

Disrupted cortical proprioceptive representation evokes symptoms of peculiarity, foreignness and swelling, but not pain

Objectives. It has been proposed that disruption of the internal proprioceptive representation, via incongruent sensory input, may underpin pathological pain states, but experimental evidence relies on conflicting visual input, which is not clinically relevant. We aimed to determine the symptomatic effect of incongruent proprioceptive input, imparted by vibration of the wrist tendons, which evokes the illusion of perpetual wrist flexion and disrupts cortical proprioceptive representation. Methods. Twenty-nine healthy and naive volunteers reported symptoms during five conditions: control, active and passive wrist flexion, extensor carpi radialis tendon vibration to evoke illusion of perpetual wrist flexion, and ulnar styloid (sham) vibration. No advice was given about possible illusions. Results. Twenty-one subjects reported the illusion of perpetual wrist flexion during tendon vibration. There was no effect of condition or of whether or not subjects reported an illusion on discomfort/pain (P > 0.28). Peculiarity, swelling and foreignness were greater during tendon vibration than during the other conditions, and greater during tendon vibration in those who reported an illusion of wrist flexion than in those who did not (P < 0.05 for all). Symptoms were reported by at least two subjects in each condition and four subjects reported systemic symptoms (e.g. nausea). Conclusions. In healthy volunteers, incongruent proprioceptive input does not cause discomfort or pain but does evoke feelings of peculiarity, swelling and foreignness in the limb.