Body scheme in rats Rattus norvegicus

Body schemata of rats Rattus norvegicus were studied using a procedure according to which the animals had to take into account the enlarged boundaries of their bodies. Rats of experimental and control groups were trained to get the bait putting the head through the hole of a certain size. Then the boundary of the body of rats of the experimental group was increased using a small cylindrical object mounted on the crown of their heads to prevent putting through the hole. For the control group rats, the size of the hole through which the animals have been trained to take the bait was reduced to prevent the penetration of the rat’s head. In the subsequent experimental series, the arrangement of the holes was varied. It is shown that, with the increased boundaries of the body, the rats are capable of forming a new learning adequate to situation change, which was reflected in the reliable reduction of the time for solving the problem by the end of each series and the reduced number of unsuccessful attempts. Rats of the experimental group also showed the ability to transfer previously gained experience to the new situation, when the location of the holes in the box was changed. The data suggest that the rats are able to modify the body scheme in accordance to change in its physical boundaries.

1. Barabanschikov V. A. Vospriyatie i sobytie [Perception and Event]. SPb., Aleteiya Publ., 2002 (In Russ.).
2. Barnes C. A. Memory deficits associated with senescence: a neurophysiological and behavioral study in the Tat.Joum. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 1979, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 74-104.
3. Beauchamp T. L., Childress J. F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 5th ed., 2001.
4. Berti A., Frassinetti F. When Far Becomes Near: Remapping of Space by Tool Use.Joum. of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2000, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 415-420. doi:10.1162/089892900562237
5. Burychenkova D. S., Khvatov I. A. Osobennosti vospriyatiya granits sobstvennogo tela stsinkami Tiliqua gigas [Peculiariries of perception of own body limits in Tiliqua gigas skinks]. In A.L. Zhuravlev, E. A. Ser- gienko (eds.), Psikhologiya - nauka budushchego: Materialy VI Mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii molodykh uchenykh [Psychology, a Science of Future. Materials of the Fourth International Conference of Young Scientists], Moscow, Institute of Psychology, RAS Publ., 2015 (In Russ.).
6. Carlson Т., Alvarez G., Wu Daw-an, Verstraten F. A.J. Rapid Assimilation of External Objects into the Body Schema. Psychological Science, 2010, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1000-1005. doi:10.1177/0956797610371962
7. Costantini М., Frassinetti F., Maini М., Ambrosini E., Gallese V., Sinigaglia C. When a laser pen becomes a stick: remapping of space by tool-use observation in hemispatial neglect. Experimental Brain Research, 2014, vol. 232, no. 10, pp. 3233-3241.
8. Gallagher S., Cole J. Body Schema and Body Image in a Deafferented Subject. Joum. of Mind and Beha­vior, 1995, vol. 16, pp. 369-390. doi: 10.1068/p7027
9. Garbarinia F., Fossataroa C., Bertia A., Gindria P., Romanod D., Pia L., Gattaf F., Maravitad A., Nep- pi-Modona M. When your arm becomes mine: Pathological embodiment of alien limbs using tools modulates own body representation. Neuropsychologia, 2015, vol. 70, pp. 402-413. doi:10.1016/j.neuro- psychologia.2014.11.008
10. Giglia G., Pia L., Folegatti A., Puma P., Fierro B., Cosentino G., Berti A., Brighina F. Far Space Remapping by Tool Use: A rTMS Study Over the Right Posterior Parietal Cortex. Brain Stimulation, 2015, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 795-800. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.412
11. Gozli D. G., Brown L. E. Agency and Control for the Integration of a Virtual Tool into the Peripersonal Space. Perception, 2011, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 1309-1319.
12. Johnson-Frey S. The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2004, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 71-78. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002
13. Khvatov I. A. Spetsifika samootrazheniya u vida Periplaneta americana [Peculiarities of self-reflection in Periplaneta anericana cockroaches], Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya [Experimental Psychology (Russia)], 2011, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 28-39 (In Russ.; abstr. in Engl.).
14. Khvatov I. A. Glavnye napravleniya evolyutsii psikhiki v kontekste ontologicheskogo i differentsionno- integratsionnogo podkhodov. Chast' 1 [Main directions of evolution of mind in the context of the differention- integration approach/ Part 1], Psikhologicheskie issledctvaniya [Psychological Studies], 2012a, no. 1 (21), p. 1. URL: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2012nl-21/622-khvatov21.html. doi: 0421200116/0001 (In Russ.).
15. Khvatov I. A. Evolyutsiya samootrazheniya zhivotnykh i cheloveka v kontekste differentsionno- integratsionnogo podkhoda [Evolution of self-reflection in animals and humans in the context of differentiation-integration approach]. In N.I. Chuprikova, E.V. Volkova (eds.), Differentsionno- integratsionnaya teoriya razvitiya. Kn. 2. [Differentiation-integration Theory of Development. Book 2]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur Publ., 2014, pp. 343-360 (In Russian).
16. Khvatov I. A., Kharitonov A.N. Spetsifika samootrazheniya u vida Achatina fulica [Specifics of self- reflaction in Achatina fulica]. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya [Experimental Psychology (Russia)], 2012, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 96-107 (In Russ.; abstr. in Engl.).
17. Khvatov I. A., Kharitonov A.N., Sokolov A. Yu. Osobennosti sootneseniya fizicheskikh kharakteristik sobstvennogo tela s ob»ektami okruzhayushchei sredy pri orientatsii vo vneshnem prostranstve u sverchkov Gryllus assimilis [How crickets Gryllus assimilis relate physical characteristics of their bodies to environmental objects in spatial orientation], Eksperimental’naya psikkologiya [Experimental Psychology (Russia)], 2013, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 79-95 (In Russ.; abstr. in Engl).
18. Khvatov I. A., Sokolov A. Yu., Kharitonov A. N. Skhema sobstvennogo tela u zmei Lampropeltis triangulum campbelli [Body schema in snakes Lampropeltis triangulum campbelli] Eksperimental’naya psikkologiya [Experimental Psychology (Russia)], 2015b, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 119-138. doi:10.17759/exppsy.2015080209 (In Russ.; abstr. in Engl).
19. Khvatov I. A., Sokolov A. Yu., Kharitonov A. N., Kulichenkova K. N. Vospriyatie sobstvennogo tela u krys [Own body perception in rats]. In V. A. Barabanshchikov (ed.), Estestvenno-nauchnyipodkhodv sovremennoi psikhologii [Natural science approach in modem psychology] Moscow, Institute of Psychology, RAS, 2014a, pp. 326-332 (In Russ.).
20. Khvatov I. A., Sokolov A. Yu., Kharitonov A.N., Kulichenkova K.N. Metodika izucheniya skhemy tela u melkikh mlekopitayushchikh [A method of body schema studies in small mammals]. Eksperimental’naya psikkologiya [ExperimentalPsychology (Russia)], 2014b, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 137-144 (In Russ.; abstr. in Engl.).
21. Kohler W. Issledovanie intellekta chelovekoobraznykh obez'yan [A Study of Intelligence of Apes]. Moscow, Izd-vo Komakademii Publ., 1930 (In Russ.).
22. Maravita A. Iriki A. Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2004, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 79-86.
23. Moeller B., Zoppke H., Flings C. What a car does to your perception: Distance evaluations differ from within and outside of a car. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2015. doi: 10.3758/cl3423-015-0954-9
24. Morris R. Developments of a water-maze procedure for studying spatial learning in the rat .Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 1984, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 47-60.
25. Ritchie J.B. Carlson T.A. Tool Integration and Dynamic Touch. Psychological Science, 2013. doi: 10.1177/0956797612459768