Search

Abstract Multisensory integration plays a crucial role in building the sense of body ownership, i.e., the perceptual status of one’s body for which the body is perceived as belonging to oneself. Temporal and spatial mismatching of visual and tactile signals coming from one’s body can reduce ownership feelings towards the body and its parts, i.e., produce disownership feelings. Here, we investigated whether visuo–tactile conflict also affects the sensorimotor representation of the body in space (i.e., body schema) and the perception of the space around the body in terms of action potentiality (i.e., reaching space). In two experiments, body schema (Experiment 1) and reaching space (Experiment 2) were assessed before and after either synchronous or asynchronous visuo–tactile stimulation. Results showed that the asynchronous condition, provoking multisensory conflict, caused disownership over one’s hand and concurrently affected the body schema and the reaching space. These findings indicate that body schema and reaching space could be dynamically shaped by the multisensory regularities that build up the sense of body ownership.

Slow, gentle stimulation of hairy skin is generally accompanied by hedonic sensations. This phenomenon, also known as (positive) affective touch, is likely to be the basis of affiliative interactions with conspecifics by promoting inter-individual bindings. Previous studies on healthy humans have demonstrated that affective touch can remarkably impact behavior. For instance, by administering the Rubber Hand Illusion (RHI) paradigm, the embodiment of a fake hand enhances after a slow, affective touch compared to a fast, neutral touch. However, results coming from this area are not univocal. In addition, there are no clues in the existing literature on the relationship between affective touch and the space around our body. To overcome these lacks, we carried out two separate experiments where participants underwent a RHI paradigm (Experiment 1) and a Visuo-Tactile Interaction task (Experiment 2), designed to tap into body representation and peripersonal space processing, respectively. In both experiments, an affective touch (CT-optimal, 3 cm/s) and neutral touch (CT-suboptimal, 18 cm/s) were delivered by the experimenter on the dorsal side of participants’ hand through a “skin to skin” contact. In Experiment 1, we did not find any modulation of body representation—not at behavioral nor at a physiological level—by affective touch. In Experiment 2, no visuo-tactile spatial modulation emerged depending upon the pleasantness of the touch received. These null findings are interpreted in the light of the current scientific context where the real nature of affective touch is often misguided, and they offer the possibility to pave the way for understanding the real effects of affective touch on body/space representation.