Volume 9 · Number 1 · Pages 73–84
Investigating Extended Embodiment Using a Computational Model and Human Experimentation

Yuki Sato, Hiroyuki Iizuka & Takashi Ikegami

Log in to download the full text for free

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Context: Our body schema is not restricted to biological body boundaries (such as the skin), as can be seen in the use of a cane by a person who is visually impaired or the “rubber hands” experiment. The tool becomes a part of the body schema when the focus of our attention is shifted from the tool to the task to be performed. Problem: A body schema is formed through interactions among brain, body, tool, and environment. Nevertheless, the dynamic mechanisms underlying changes in the body schema are still not fully understood. Method: To study the changing conditions of the body schema (e.g., a shift of attention), a simulation model of object discrimination was extended to differentiate between two kinds of sensitivities – sensitivity to an object being directly manipulated and sensitivity to another object being manipulated by the first. The proposed model consisted of windmills with different numbers of vanes. A model agent was required to determine the number of vanes on a windmill by touching the vanes blindly with an arm controlled by a neural network. Placing a second windmill beside the first and gearing the two windmills to move associatively resulted in the agent using the first windmill as a tool with which to discern the number of vanes on the second windmill. In other words, an agent’s body schema can shift from its arm tip to the boundary between the first and second windmills. We then introduced an experiment with a real windmill model to test the hypothesis demonstrated by the theoretical model. Results: We demonstrated that even simple computational agents can have two different sensitivities to the windmills. One agent becomes sensitive to the first windmill and insensitive to the second one. Another agent becomes insensitive to the first windmill and sensitive to the second one by using the first one as a tool. Therefore, we concluded that the boundary of the body schema was extended to the first windmill in the case of the latter agent because paying attention to the task to be performed instead of the tool itself is essential for the tool to be considered as part of the body schema. Analysis of the experiments using a computational model and human experimentation revealed that a shift from an irregular to a regular movement of a windmill is an indication of extension of the body schema. Constructivist content: Our insights are beneficial for enactive cognitive science. This is because an extended body schema questions the Cartesian separation between subject and object, and the self and the environment.

Key words: Lived body, sensor-motor flow, emergent self, figure/ground reversal.


Sato Y., Iizuka H. & Ikegami T. (2013) Investigating extended embodiment using a computational model and human experimentation. Constructivist Foundations 9(1): 73–84. http://constructivist.info/9/1/073

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Sato Y., Iizuka H. & Ikegami T. (2013) Authors’ Response: From Bodily Extension to Bodily Incorporation
Petri J. & Gromadzki A. (2022) Enacting the “Body” of Neurophenomenology: Off-Radar First-Person Methodologies in Pragmatics of Experiencing
Ikegami T. (2013) The Self-moving Oil Droplet as a Homeostat


Beaton M. (2013) Phenomenology and embodied action. Constructivist Foundations 8(3): 298–313. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/8/3/298.beaton
Beer R. D. (1995) On the dynamics of small continuous-time recurrent neural networks. Adaptive Behavior 13(4): 469–509. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Beer R. D. (2000) Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(3): 91–99. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Braitenberg V. (1984) Vehicles: Experiments in synthetic psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Brooks R. A. (1991) Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence 47: 139–159. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Brooks R. A. (1991) New approaches to robotics. Science 253: 1227–1232. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Chalmers D. (1996) The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Clark A. (2008) Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dautenhahn K., Ogden B. & Quick T. (2002) From embodied to socially embedded agents – Implications for interaction-aware robots. Cognitive Systems Research 3(3): 397–428. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
De Preester H. & Tsakiris M. (2009) Body-extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8(3): 307–319. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dotov D. G., Nie L. & Chemero A. (2010) A demonstration of the transition from ready-to-hand to unready-to-hand. PLoS ONE 5(3): e9433. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Flanagan J. R. & Johansson R. S. (2003) Action plans used in action observation. Nature 424: 769–771. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T. & Ziemke T. (2009) Enactive artificial intelligence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind. Artificial Intelligence 173(3–4): 366–500. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T. (2007) On the role of AI in the ongoing paradigm shift within the cognitive sciences. In: Lungarella M., Iida F., Bongard J. & Pfeifer R. (eds.) 50 years of artificial intelligence: Essays dedicated to the 50th anniversary of artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin: 63–75. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T. (2010) From cybernetics to second-order cybernetics : A comparative analysis of their central ideas. Constructivist Foundations 5(2): 75–85. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/5/2/075.froese
Froese T. (2011) Breathing new life into cognitive science. Avant. The Journal of the Philosophical-Interdisciplinary Vanguard 2(1): 95–111. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T. (2011) From second-order cybernetics to enactive cognitive science: Varela’s turn from epistemology to phenomenology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 28(6): 631–645. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T. (in press). Bio-machine hybrid technology: A theoretical assessment and some suggestions for improved future design. Philosophy & Technology. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T., Gershenson C. & Rosenblueth D. A. (2013) The dynamically extended mind: A minimal modeling case study. IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE Press: 1419–1426. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T., McGann M., Bigge W., Spiers A. & Seth A. K. (2012) The enactive torch: A New tool for the science of perception. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 5(4): 365–375. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T., Suzuki K., Ogai Y. & Ikegami T. (2012) Using human-computer interfaces to investigate “mind-as-it-could-be” from the first-person perspective. Cognitive Computation 4(3): 365–382. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Froese T., Suzuki K., Wakisaka S., Ogai Y. & Ikegami T. (2011) From artificial life to artificial embodiment: Using human-computer interfaces to investigate the embodied mind “as-it-could-be” from the first-person perspective. In: Kazakov D. & Tsoulas G. (eds.) Proceedings of AISB’11: Computing & philosophy. Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behavior, York UK: 43–50. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gallese V., Fadiga L., Fogassi L. & Rizzolatti G. (1996) Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain 119: 593–609. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gillian A. B. & Simon J. W. (1998) The lived body: Sociological themes, embodied issues. Routledge, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Harnad S. (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42: 335–346. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Head H. & Holmes G. (1911) Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Brain 34: 102–254. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hoffmann H., Marques H., Arieta A., Sumioka H., Lungarella M. & Pfeifer R. (2010) Body schema in robotics: A review. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 2(4): 304–324 ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Holland J. H. (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Iizuka H. & Ikegami T. (2005) Emergence of body image and the dichotomy of sensory and motor activity. In: Name I. (ed.) Proceedings of the symposium on next generation approaches to machine consciousness. The University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield UK: 104–109. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Iizuka H., Ando H. & Maeda T. (2009) The anticipation of human behavior using “parasitic humanoid.” In: Jacko J. A. (ed.) Human-computer interaction: Ambient, ubiquitous and intelligent interaction. Springer, Berlin: 284–293. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Johansson R. S., Westling G., Bäckström A. & Flanagan J. R. (2001) Eye-hand coordination in object manipulation. Journal of Neuroscience 21(17): 6917–6932. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kelso J. A. S. (1995) Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kwok R. (2013) Once more, with feeling: Prosthetic arms are getting ever more sophisticated. Now they just need a sense of touch. Nature 497: 176–178. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Leder D. (1990) The absent body. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maravita A. & Iriki A. (2004) Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Science 8(2): 79–86. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
McGann M., Froese T., Bigge W., Spiers A. & Seth A. K. (2011) The use of a distal-to-tactile sensory substitution interface does not lead to extension of body image. In: Bardy B. G., Lagarde J. & Mottet D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2011 international SKILLS Conference. EDP Sciences, Paris: 00060. Available at http://www.bio-conferences.org/articles/bioconf/abs/2011/01/bioconf_skills_00060/bioconf_skills_00060.html ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
McGee K. (2005) Enactive cognitive science. Constructivist Foundations 1(1): 19–34. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/1/1/019.mcgee ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
McGee K. (2006) Enactive cognitive science. Constructivist Foundations 1(2): 73–82. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/1/2/073.mcgee ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
McGee K. (2008) Disclosing autopoeitic subjectivity: Tracing a path from life to consciousness. Constructivist Foundations 3(2): 117–118. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/2/117.mcgee ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Merleau-Ponty M. (1962) Phenomenology of perception. Translated by C. Smith. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nie L., Dotov D. & Chemero A. (2011) Readiness-to-hand, extended cognition, and multifractality. In: Carlson L., Hoelscher C. & Shipley T. F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin TX: 1835–1840. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pfeifer R. & Scheier C. (1999) Understanding intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Port R. & Gelder T. (1995) Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ramachandran V. S. & Blakeslee S. (1998) Phantoms in the brain: Probing the mysteries of the human mind. William Morrow, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Riegler A. (2002) When is a cognitive system embodied? Cognitive Systems Research 3(3): 339–348. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Riley M. & Holden J. (2012) Dynamics of cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 3(6): 593–606. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rizzolatti G. & Craighero L. (2004) The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of Physiology 27: 169–192. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rizzolatti G. & Fadiga L. (1998) Grasping objects and grasping action meanings: the dual role of monkey rostroventral premotor cortex (area f5) In: Bock G. R. & Goode J. A. (eds.) Sensory guidance of movement. Novartis Foundation Symposium 218. Wiley, Chichester: 81–103. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rizzolatti G., Fadiga L., Gallese V. & Fogassi L. (1996) Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research 3: 131–141. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rohde M. (2010) Enaction, embodiment, evolutionary robotics: Simulation models for a post-cognitivist science of mind. Atlantis Press, Amsterdam. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rohde M., Di Luca M. & Ernst M. O. (2011) The rubber hand illusion: Feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21659. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sato Y., Iizuka H. & Ikegami T. (2009) Generation of body images in an active/passive perception model. In: Reynolds C. & Cassinelli A. (ed.) Proceedings of the fifth Asia-Pacific computing and philosophy conference. Tokyo University, Tokyo: 100–105. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sato Y., Iizuka H. & Ikegami T. (2011) An experimentation and computational approach to the dynamic boundary problem. In: Lenaerts T., Giacobini M., Bersini H., Bourgine P., Dorigo M. & Doursat D. (ed.) Proceedings of the European conference on artificial life. MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 721–728. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Suzuki K. & Ikegami T. (2004) Self-repairing and mobility of a simple cell. In: Pollack J. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the ninth international conference on the simulation and synthesis of living systems. MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 421–426. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Suzuki K., Garfinkel S. N., Critchley H. D. & Seth A. K. (in press). Multisensory integration across exteroceptive and interoceptive domains modulates self-experience in the rubber-hand illusion. Neuropsychologia. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Suzuki K., Wakisaka S. & Fujii N. (2012) Substitutional reality system: a novel experimental platform for experiencing alternative reality. Scientific Reports 2: 459. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep00459 ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thompson E. & Stapleton M. (2009) Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi 28(1): 23–30. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thompson E. & Varela F. (2001) Radical embodiment: Neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Science 5 (10): 418–425. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thompson E. (2007) Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
van Orden G., Holden J. & Turvey M. T. (2003) Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132: 331–351. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
van Orden G., Holden J. & Turvey M. T. (2005) Human cognition and 1/f scaling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134: 117–123. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. J. (1979) Principles of biological autonomy. Elsevier North Holland, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. J. (1991) Organism: A meshwork of selfless selves. In: Tauber A. I. (ed.) Organism and the origins of self. Kluwer, Dordrecht: 79–107. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. J., Thompson E. & Rosch E. (1991) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Vernon D., von Hofsten C. & Fadiga L. (2010) A roadmap for cognitive development in humanoid robots. Springer, Berlin. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
von Hofsten C. (2004) An action perspective on motor development. Trends in Cognitive Science 8: 266–272. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
von Hofsten C. (2009) Action, the foundation for cognitive development. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 50: 617–623. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
von Hofsten C. (2013) Action Science: The emergence of a new discipline. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Walter W. G. (1950) An imitation of life. Scientific American 182(5): 42–45. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Walter W. G. (1951) A machine that learns. Scientific American 185(2): 60–63. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wheeler M. (2005) Reconstructing the cognitive world: The next step. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wilson R. & Clark A. (2008) How to situate cognition. In: Robbins P. & Aydede M. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA: 55–77. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Yamamoto S. & Kitazawa S. (2001) Sensation at the tips of invisible tools. Nature Neuroscience 4: 979–980. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ziemke T. (2001) Are robots embodied? In: Balkenius C., Zlatev J., Dautenhahn K., Kozima H. & Breazeal C. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics – Modeling Cognitive Development in Robotic Systems. Lund University Cognitive Studies 85. LUCS, Lund: 75–83. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ziemke T. (2003) What’s that thing called embodiment? In: Alterman R. & Kirsh D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ: 1134–1139. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.