**6. References**

328 Neuroimaging – Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience

Gentaz 2003). This neonatal ability is independent of learning or the influence of the environment. However, by means of bi-directional crossmodal transfer tasks, Streri and colleagues have provided evidence on the perceptual mechanisms present at birth that constrain or limit the exchange of information between the sensory modalities. Newborns visually recognize the shape of a felt object, but are unable to recognize the shape of a seen object with their hands (Sann and Streri 2007). The link is obtained from the simplest information gathered, i.e. tactile information. Moreover, it is observed only with the newborn's right hand and not with the left (Streri and Gentaz 2004). A third striking result is that crossmodal transfer depends on object properties, being bidirectional with texture but not with shape (Sann and Streri 2007)—although this finding holds if, and only if, the felt textured object is volumetric, and not flat (Sann and Streri 2008b). For shape, just as for texture, the newborn's exploratory procedures are limited to the grasping reflex, which makes effective exploration of object properties impossible. All of these findings suggest that at birth, the links between the senses are specific to individual modalities and are not

Asymmetries in cross-modal transfer tasks continue to be found throughout the course of development. Several studies have also revealed that the links between the haptic and visual modalities are fragile, often not bi-directional, and representation of objects is never complete: this holds not only in infancy (Rose and Orlian 1991; Streri 2007; Streri and Pêcheux 1986b), but in children (Gori *et al.* 2008) and adults (Kawashima *et al.* 2002). Crossmodal transfer of information is rarely reversible, and is generally asymmetrical even when it is bi-directional (see Hatwell, Gentaz and Streri, 2003 for a review). The links between sensory modalities for object shape over the course of development appear to be

Why does cross-modal integration of spatial information develop in an asymmetrical manner? Several explanations may be offered. Sensory systems are not mature at birth, but become increasingly refined as children develop. Sometimes seen objects are observed to be well-recognized by touch, and more often, felt objects are well-recognized by vision. One possibility is that the sensory systems involved in spatial perception need to be continuously recalibrated during development, to take into account physical growth, such as changes in digit length (which affect haptic judgments), interocular separation, and eyeball length (affecting visual judgments). However, from birth, the links between the senses are more often effective when they begin with the hands rather than the eyes. Animal and adult neuroimaging studies also highlight asymmetries in cross-modal transfer tasks. Another suggestion would be that the links from eyes to hands are more effective for reaching and grasping objects than for cross-modal recognition. When we see an object, usually we take in information for some other purpose: e.g., transporting it to the mouth or somewhere else. In infancy, the hands are used as instruments to transport objects to the eyes or mouth, and the acquisition of this new ability develops to the detriment of the hands' perceptual function. Sensorimotor coordination triggered by the sight of an object is present from birth even though this ability mainly starts to be effective at about 4/5 months, at the beginning of prehension-vision. This ability may be better understood as the counterpart of cross-modal transfer from touch to vision. In both cases, perception and action are strongly linked. It is therefore important to note that sensory integration problems have often been observed in developmental disorders such as autism, dyslexia, and attention deficit disorder: understanding how incoming sensory information is transformed into outgoing motor

commands is crucial for the diagnosis of such disorders (see Stein et al., 2009).

yet or entirely a general property of the brain.

flexible rather than immutable.


Intermanual and Intermodal Transfer in Human Newborns:

Point-of-Light*. PloS ONE 2(1): e186.* 

Neonatal Behavioral Evidence and Neurocognitive Approach 331

Lejeune, F., Audeoud, F., Marcus, L., Streri, A., Debillon, T., & Gentaz, E. (2010). The manual

Merabet, L., Thut, G., Murray, B., Andrews, J., Hsiao, S. and Pascual-Leone, A. (2004).

Milh M, Kaminska A, Huon C, Lapillonne A, Ben-Ari Y, et al. (2007) Rapid oscillations and early motor activity in premature human neonate. *Cerebral Cortex, 17*, 1582-1594. Molina, M., & Jouen, F. (1998). Modulation of the palmar grasp behavior in neonates according to texture property. *Infant Behavior and Development, 21*, 659-666. Newham, C. and McKenzie, B. E. (1993). Crossmodal transfer of sequential and haptic

Pascalis, O., & De Haan, M. (2003). Recognition memory and novelty preference: what

Roland, P. E. and Mortensen, E. (1987). Somatosensory detection of microgeometry, macrogeometry and kinaesthesia in man. *Brain Research Review, 12*, 1-42. Roland, P. E., O'Sullivan, B. and Kawashima, R. (1998). Shape and roughness activate

Rose, S. A. and Orlian, E. K. (1991). Asymmetries in infant crossmodal transfer. *Child* 

Rovee-Collier, C., and Barr, R. (2001). Infant learning and memory. In G. Bremner and A.

Sann, C., & Streri, A. (2008a). Intermanual transfer of object texture and shape in human

Sann, C., & Streri, A. (2008b). The limits of newborn's grasping to detect texture in a crossmodal transfer task. *Infant Behavior and Development, 31*, 523-531. Sann, C., and Streri, A. (2007). Perception of object shape and texture in human newborns: evidence from crossmodal transfer tasks. *Developmental Science, 10*, 398-409. Sathian, K. (2005). Visual cortical activity during tactile perception in the sighted and the

Simons, S. H., van Dijk, M., Anand, K. S., Roofthooft, D., van Lingen, R. A., & Tibboel, D.

Sizun. J, & Browne, J.V. (2005). *Research on early developmental care for preterm neonates.* Paris:

Soroka, S. M., Corter, C. M., & Abramovitch, R. (1979). Infants' tactual discrimination of

Stein, B.E., Perrault Jr, T.J., Stanford, T.R., and Rowland, B.A. (2009). Postnatal experiences

novel and familiar tactual stimuli. *Child Development*, *50*, 1251-1253.

(2003). Do we still hurt newborn babies? A prospective study of procedural pain and analgesia in neonates. *Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157*, 1058-

influence how the brain integrates information from different senses. *Frontiers in* 

visually deprived. *Development Psychobiology, 46*, 279-286.

*integrative neuroscience.* Do:10.3389/neuro.07.021.2009.

model? In H. Hayne & J. Fagen (Eds.), *Progress in infancy research* (*V*ol. 3, pp 95-120).

different somatosensory areas in the human brain. *Proceedings of the National* 

Fogel (Eds.), *Handbook of infant development* (pp. 139-168). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Feeling by sight or seeing by touch? *Neuron*, *42,* 173-179.

information by clumsy children. *Perception, 22*, 1061-1073.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Academy of Sciences USA, 95,* 3295-3300.

neonates. *Neuropsychologia*, *46*, 698-703.

*Development*, *62*, 706-718.

Publishing.

1064.

John Libbey Eurotext.

habituation and discrimination of shapes in preterm human infants from 33 to 34+6 post-conceptional age. *PLoS ONE,* 5: e9108. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009108. Meary, D., Kitromilides, E., Mazens, K., Christian Graff & Edouard Gentaz (2007). Four-

Day-Old Human Neonates Look Longer at Non-Biological Motions of a Single


Guellai, B., & Streri, A. (2011). Cues for early social skills: direct gaze modulates newborns'

Hatwell, Y. (1994). Transferts intermodaux et intégration intermodale (crossmodal transfers

Hatwell, Y., Gentaz, E., & Streri, A. (2003). *Touching for knowing. Cognitive psychology of tactile* 

Humphrey, T. (1964). Some correlations between the appearance of human fetal reflexes and the development of the nervous system. *Progress in Brain Research, 4*, 93-135. Hsiao, SS. (2008). Central mechanisms of tactile shape perception. *Current Opinion in Biology*,

Hsiao, SS. (1998). Similarities between touch and vision. In JW. Morley (ed.) *Neural aspects of* 

Izard, V., Sann, C., Spelke, E., and Streri, A. (2009). Newborn infants perceive abstract numbers. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 10382-10385.* Johnston, C. C., & Stevens, B. J. (1996). Experience in a neonatal intensive care unit affects

Jones, B., and Connolly, K. (1970). Memory effects in crossmodal matching. *British Journal of* 

Juurmaa, J., and Lehtinen-Railo, S. (1988). Visual experience and access to spatial

Katz, D. (1925/1989). *The world of touch (*translated by L.E. Krueger. 1989). Hillsdale, NJ:

Kawashima , R., Watanabe, J. Kato, Takashi, Nakamura, A., Hatano, K., Schormann, T., Sato,

Kellman, P. J. and Arterberry, M. E. (1988). *The cradle of knowledge*. Cambridge MA: MIT

Kerzerho, S., Streri, A., and Gentaz, E (2009). Factors influencing the manual discriminations

Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., and Reed, C. (1987). There's more to touch than meets the

Kontis, D., Catani, M., Cuddy, M., Walshe, M., Nosarti, C., Jones, D., et al. (2009). Diffusion

Lacey, S., Campbell, C., and Sathian, K. (2007). Vision and touch: Multiple or multisensory

Lederman, S. J., and Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object

Lejeune, F., Audeoud, F., Marcus, L., Streri, A., Debillon, T. and Gentaz, E. (in press).

of orientations in 5-month-old infants. *Perception, 38*, 44-51.

*Experimental Psychology: General, 116,* 356-369.

recognition. *Cognitive Psychology, 19*, 342-368.

post-conceptional age. *Child Development.* 

representations of objects? *Perception, 36*, 1513-1521.

K., Fukuda, H., Ito, K. and Zilles, K. (2002). Direction of crossmodal information transfer affects human brain activation: A PET study. *European Journal of* 

eye: The salience of object attributes for haptic with and without vision. *Journal of* 

tensor MRI of the corpus callosum and cognitive function in adults born preterm.

Intermanual transfer of shapes in preterm human infants from 33 to 34+6weeks

knowledge. *Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness*, *88,* 157-170.

and intersensory integration). In M. Richelle, J. Requin and M. Robert (Eds.), *Traité* 

recognition of talking faces. *Plos One.* PONE-D-11-00014R1.

*de psychologie expérimentale* (Vol 1, pp. 543-584). Paris: PUF.

*manual perception.* Johns Benjamins Publishing Compagny.

*tactile sensation* (pp 131-165). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

pain response. *Pediatrics, 98,* 925-930.

*Psychology*, *61,* 267-270.

*Neuroscience, 16,* 137-144.

*NeuroReport*, *20*, 424-428.

*18,* 418-424.

Erlbaum.

Press.


**17** 

*Austria* 

**Somatosensory Stimulation in Functional** 

*2Karl Landsteiner Institute for Neurorehabilitation and Space Neurology Vienna* 

Functional brain imaging of the somatosensory system has evolved over the past two decades and it has become an important tool in the preoperative planning in neurosurgery, in the monitoring in neurorehabilitation and for the understanding of motor recovery after

Mapping of movement related cortical areas and areas that are related to body sensation was initially performed during neurosurgical procedures using direct cortical stimulation (Penfield, 1937). Several functional brain mapping techniques have subsequently evolved (Toga and Mazziotta, 2002). The era of functional brain imaging began in the 1980s with the implementation of the Positron Emission Tomography (PET) which provided a measure of the regional cerebral blood flow. Since the 1990s functional brain imaging is dominated by the rise of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) based on the blood oxygenation level dependant (BOLD) effect that was discovered 1990 by Ogawa et al. (Ogawa et al., 1990;Ogawa et al., 1992). Subsequently continuous evolution and progress of fMRI as well as its increasing popularity and spreading clinical use as a highly sensitive diagnostic neuroimaging instrument suitable for the assessment of a large variety of neurological and neurosurgical indications made fMRI to the leading functional neuroimaging modality. In this chapter we review somatosensory stimulation in PET and fMRI during the past decades, their advantages and disadvantages, optimal stimulation protocols as well as corresponding brain maps of different approaches of somatosensory stimulation in

brain damage for the planning and optimization of neurorehabilitation strategies.

functional brain imaging and their clinical and neurophysilogical applications.

In the 1980s, Positron Emission Tomography (PET) was used for the first time to detect focal neuronal activation within the primary somatosensory cortex of humans induced by

M. Seidl1, M. Christova2, E. Gallasch2, A.B. Kunz1,5, R. Nardone1,3, E. Trinka1 and F. Gerstenbrand4,5

*1Department of Neurology and Neuroscience Institute, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Austria 2Institute of Physiology, Medical University Graz, Austria 3Department of Neurology, F. Tappeiner Hospital Meran, Italy 4Department of Neurology, Medical University Innsbruck, Austria 5Karl Landsteiner Institute for Neurorehabilitation and Space Neurology Vienna, Austria* 

**2. Positron Emission Tomography** 

 \*

**1. Introduction** 

**Neuroimaging: A Review** 

 *Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg,* 

*1Department of Neurology and Neuroscience Institute,* 

S.M. Golaszewski et al.\*

