Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:22:34.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Merging second-person and first-person neuroscience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2013

Matthew R. Longo
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.bbk.ac.uk/psychology/bodylab/
Manos Tsakiris
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/lab/

Abstract

Schilbach et al. contrast second-person and third-person approaches to social neuroscience. We discuss relations between second-person and first-person approaches, arguing that they cannot be studied in isolation. Contingency is central for converging first- and second-person approaches. Studies of embodiment show how contingencies scaffold first-person perspective and how the transition from a third- to a second-person perspective fundamentally involves first-person contributions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Botvinick, M. & Cohen, J. (1998) Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756.Google Scholar
Kammers, M. P. M., Longo, M. R., Tsakiris, M., Dijkerman, H. C. & Haggard, P. (2009) Specificity and coherence of body representations. Perception 38:1804–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T. & Blanke, O. (2007) Video ergo sum: Manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science 317:1096–99.Google Scholar
Longo, M. R. & Haggard, P. (2009) Sense of agency primes manual motor responses. Perception 38:6978.Google Scholar
Longo, M. R. & Haggard, P. (2012) What is it like to have a body? Current Directions in Psychological Science 21:140–45.Google Scholar
Longo, M. R., Schüür, F., Kammers, M. P. M., Tsakiris, M. & Haggard, P. (2008) What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition 107:978–98.Google Scholar
Paladino, M.-P., Mazzurega, M, Pavani, F. & Schubert, T. W. (2010) Synchronous multisensory stimulation blurs self-other boundaries. Psychological Science 21:1202–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petkova, V. I. & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008) If I were you: Perceptual illusion of body swapping. PLoS One 3:e3832.Google Scholar
Sforza, A., Bufalari, I., Haggard, P. & Aglioti, S. M. (2010) My face in yours: Visuo-tactile facial stimulation influences sense of identity. Social Neuroscience 5:148–62.Google Scholar
Tajadura-Jimenez, A., Grehl, S. & Tsakiris, M. (2012) The other in me: Interpersonal multisensory stimulation changes the mental representation of the self. PLoS ONE 7: e40682.Google Scholar
Tsakiris, M. (2008) Looking for myself: Current multisensory input alters self-face recognition. PLoS One 3:e4040.Google Scholar
Tsakiris, M. (2010) My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 48:703–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsakiris, M. & Haggard, P. (2005) The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31:8091.Google Scholar
Tsakiris, M., Longo, M. R. & Haggard, P. (2010) Having a body versus moving your body: Neural signatures of agency and body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 48:2740–49.Google Scholar
Tsakiris, M., Prabhu, G. & Haggard, P. (2006) Having a body versus moving your body: How agency structures body ownership. Consciousness and Cognition 15:423–32.Google Scholar