Three Trainable Components of Body Representation: Evidence from a Decade of Naturalistic Perceptual Skills Training

Created 2026-02-03

Status accepted — poster presentation confirmed

Location Padua, Italy

Tags conferenceabstractscienceinternal

Abstract

Three Trainable Components of Body Representation: Evidence from a Decade of Naturalistic Perceptual Skills Training

Background. Body awareness frameworks developed for clinical and well-being contexts (e.g., Mehling et al., 2009) predominantly assess interoceptive awareness (Price et al., 2018) and its relationship to stress and emotional regulation. While valuable for therapeutic applications, these frameworks conflate dimensions of body representation that are functionally and neurally distinct, and do not address somatosensory discrimination capacities relevant to motor learning. We propose a complementary framework grounded in movement pedagogy, identifying three trainable components of body representation with distinct neural substrates.

Methods. The proposed framework was developed from the naturalistic study of Baseworks — a movement methodology that underwent approximately ten years of iterative refinement in a studio context with over 10,000 learners across diverse populations, optimizing for a single constraint: communicability — the reliability with which movement instructions produce the intended movement in a diverse learner. Systematic observation, textual analysis of movement instructions, and learner feedback (n=61 text-based; n=25 interviews) were used to formalize the resulting framework.

Findings. Communicability failures consistently clustered around three separable perceptual bottlenecks, each addressed by a distinct set of training principles. (1) Localized proprioceptive awareness — conscious detection of spatially specific sensations arising from muscle activation, hypothesized to reflect fusimotor reafference (Luu et al., 2011); large individual variation was confirmed in a survey of non-practitioners (n=36). (2) Spatial awareness — the capacity to encode, maintain, and reproduce body configurations without visual feedback, mapping onto the central memory mechanism recently identified in repositioning tasks (Proske & Weber, 2026) rather than peripheral spindle-mediated position sense; predictable failure patterns in naive learners suggest this is systematically undertrained in healthy populations. (3) Interoceptive awareness — self-regulatory monitoring of breathing and load, supporting conditions for sensory discrimination in our framework. Structured training addressing each bottleneck produced reported and observable improvements across all three dimensions.

Implications. In clinical populations, body representation breaks down through damage or disorder. In healthy but untrained populations, it is not broken — it is underdeveloped, in ways that are invisible until a training context makes the failure legible. We propose that these three components are experimentally dissociable, differentially trainable, and collectively constitute a more actionable model of body representation for research in healthy populations and potential clinical translation.

References:

Mehling WE, Gopisetty V, Daubenmier J, Price CJ, Hecht FM, Stewart A. Body awareness: construct and self-report measures. PloS one. 2009 May 19;4(5):e5614.

Price CJ, Hooven C. Interoceptive awareness skills for emotion regulation: Theory and approach of mindful awareness in body-oriented therapy (MABT). Frontiers in psychology. 2018 May 28;9:335233.

Luu BL, Day BL, Cole JD, Fitzpatrick RC. The fusimotor and reafferent origin of the sense of force and weight. J Physiol. 2011;589(13):3135-3147.

Proske U, Weber BM. Measures of human position sense do not always include contributions from peripheral sensory receptors. Eur J Neurosci. 2026;63:e70444.

Conference Overview

Location: Padua, Italy
Dates: June 8-9, 2026

URL: https://bodyrepresentation.wixsite.com/brnet/about-1-1

To interact with the world, we rely on representations of our own body. But what happens when this sense becomes distorted or unfamiliar? Altered body representations are a hallmark of several neuropsychiatric conditions, raising profound questions about the mechanisms that shape bodily self-consciousness and the boundaries between self and other.

For the 8th Annual BRNet Meeting, we will explore these questions under the theme “The Uncanny Body.” This meeting will bring together researchers and clinicians to discuss how disruptions in body perception emerge, what they reveal about the mind, and how tools and methods assessing body representation, whether in clinical populations or healthy individuals, can inform new therapeutic approaches.

🔍 Topics include:
• Body representation distortions in psychiatric conditions (e.g., eating disorders and related syndromes)
• Methods to assess body representation, from behavioural paradigms to neuroimaging and virtual reality
• Altered body perception in neurological disorders and conditions affecting bodily awareness

🎤 Confirmed keynote speakers:
Olaf Blanke (EPFL, Geneva)
Michela Bassolino (HES-SO Valais Wallis, Sion)
Jamie Feusner (University of Toronto)

📌 Important dates:
🗓 Poster submission deadline: 6 March 2026
🗓 Registration deadline: 30 March 2026
🎯 Abstract submission & registration

Submit your poster and register via the link below:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdjTqkJ-rG8XyZWsOvxTcY3sMxkLsuOseWGpHvCvRu8Q4c4tQ/viewform?pli=1

📍 Location: Padua, Italy

We look forward to welcoming you to Padua for an exciting journey into one of the most intriguing aspects of human experience - when the body becomes uncanny.

Poster Data

Layout Overview

Title block — Full title, author (Ksenia Shcherbakova, PhD — Baseworks), conference line, BRNet logo.

FRAMEWORK (top-left column)

Background paragraph: existing frameworks focus on distortion/pathology; body schema treated as implicit; INT-prioritizing tools insufficient for motor skill context. Proposes a complementary framework from movement pedagogy.
Framework paragraph: Baseworks as naturalistic study context; 10 years / 10,000+ learners / single constraint (communicability). Three domains: INT, PRO, SPA — each with D→{A, U} internal structure.
Evidence paragraph: convergent evidence from 3 datasets that systematic D training produces A and U gains without explicitly training them; A and U require D.
Table 1: Trainable Discrimination Capacities — maps INT-D, PRO-D, SPA-D (+ exteroception as reference) onto peripheral receptor input, neural substrate, and Baseworks training applications.
Figure 1: Diagram — three domains (INT, PRO, SPA) each with D→{A, U} nodes; D dimensions → Body Schema (implicit); A/U dimensions → Body Image (explicit).
D-A-U sidebar: Definitions of Discrimination, Appraisal, Use/Skill.

THE EXISTING ASSESSMENT GAP (top-center/right)

Analysis of 4 questionnaires (MAIA-2, BAQ, BPQ, IAS): each item coded to INT-D/A/U, PRO-D/A/U, SPA-D/A/U, or GEN.
Figure 2: Bar chart — item coverage by domain across all 4 tools. PRO and SPA are absent; MAIA/BAQ prioritize INT; BPQ/IAS prioritize GEN; D and U are systematically conflated within INT items.
Key findings + Conclusion: existing tools avoid SPA and PRO and cannot measure discriminative capacity.

ASSESSING DISCRIMINATIVE CAPACITY & D-A-U TRAINING OUTCOMES (section header spanning 3 columns)

Dataset descriptions (with colored domain tags indicating which domain each addresses):

Dataset 1 (n=39): Post-training feedback (video + written); thematic analysis + binary D-A-U coding across 8 outcome domains; 3 populations defined; NCA + Fisher’s exact test. Tags: INT, SPA, PRO
Dataset 2 (n=8 trained, n=15 untrained): Video recordings of teaching/study group; still frame analysis; centroid detection; geometric deviation metrics; trained vs. untrained comparison; Mann-Whitney U. Tag: SPA-D
Dataset 3 (n=36): Web-based survey of non-practitioners; awareness of muscular sensations at rest and during exercise; VIV/PLE/IMP/COM ratings; analyzed by sex, age, athletic activity. Tag: PRO-D

Three domain columns (equal width, lower two-thirds of poster):

INTEROCEPTIVE AWARENESS SKILLS (left)

Dataset 1 tag
Table 3: D-A-U distribution patterns across all 8 binary combinations (n=39); % and hypothesis consistency.
Representative quotes for D, A, U outcomes.
Table 4: NCA results — D necessary for A (consistency 0.941, p=0.095); D necessary for U (consistency 1.000, p<0.001); A and U independent given D=1 (Fisher’s p=0.654).
Figure 5: INT outcomes by population (Fitness / D→A / D→U); bar chart showing stress reduction, intensity management, emotional regulation, body sensations, daily life behavior, pain/fatigue, sleep.
Small summary table: INT-D failure patterns / INT-D→A / INT-D→U.

SPATIAL AWARENESS SKILLS (center)

Dataset 2 tag
Figure 6: SPA failure patterns — Trained vs. Untrained on 3 tasks:
- Tilt Task: Trunk Shape Invariance + Inter-Segmental Kinematic Coupling (arm decoupling, trunk shear with PV coupling error bar charts)
- Lunge Task: Support Configuration Invariance (support instability bar chart)
- Correct performance ratio for Tilt task
Key findings: errors 8–15× larger in untrained; 8.3%→36.4% improvement over 7 sessions; near-complete PV breakdown = absence of representation (perceptual failure co-occurs with motor failure).
Participant quote: “I found it very difficult and confusing…”
Small summary table: SPA-D failure patterns / SPA-D→A (vivid, aesthetically pleasing spatial perception) / SPA-D→U (generalizes to habitual movement and motor learning).

LOCALIZED PROPRIOCEPTIVE AWARENESS SKILLS (right)

Dataset 3 tag
Figure 7: Scatter plot (Vividness vs. Pleasantness, r=0.2494); full data table (n=36) with VIV/PLE/IMP/COM ratings and demographic info; summary stats table by sex (Aware/Not Aware).
Key findings: high individual variation (mean vividness 4.3±2.1); >50% report no awareness at rest; no sex or age effect; athletic activity not a predictor; 47% of aware respondents “never knew what to call it.”
Case Observations (n=1 each): Anorexia recovery; Autism+PTSD recovery.
Small summary table: PRO-D failure patterns / PRO-D→A (sense of ownership, agency, satisfaction) / PRO-D→U (ability to sense correlates with ability to control; generalizes to motor performance learning).

IMPLICATIONS (bottom, full width) Three bullets: measurement gap; RCT potential from communicability-driven operationalization; discrimination-first > attentional/appraisal approaches.

REFERENCES (bottom right, 15 citations)

Key Content Notes

The colored tags on dataset descriptions indicate which domain each dataset primarily addresses (INT = Dataset 1, SPA-D = Dataset 2, PRO-D = Dataset 3), but Dataset 1 spans all three domains.
The small 3-column tables at the bottom of each domain section (D failure patterns / D→A / D→U) are the non-experimental summary content — narrative descriptions rather than data.
The D→{A, U} structure is the through-line: established in Table 1 / Figure 1 (framework), validated quantitatively in Table 4 (NCA), and illustrated qualitatively in all three domain sections.

Notes

Asia’s edit entry link: https://docs.google.com/forms/u/0/d/e/1FAIpQLSdjTqkJ-rG8XyZWsOvxTcY3sMxkLsuOseWGpHvCvRu8Q4c4tQ/viewform?pli=1&pli=1&usp=form_confirm&edit2=2_ABaOnueEp4H8SGg155R4pxOwDxB0S29DeIcP-YuC2oDkqXuSKVNmd87W6ICoJTrUwIrwvoM

Check

“How should we measure body awareness?” https://www.iasp-pain.org/publications/relief-news/article/how-should-we-measure-body-awareness/