Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology (2014) 44, 312

Disponible en ligne sur

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE/ARTICLE ORIGINAL

Body schema building during childhood and

adolescence: A neurosensory approach
Construction du schma corporel au cours de lenfance et de
ladolescence : une approche neurosensorielle

C. Assaiante , F. Barlaam , F. Cignetti , M. Vaugoyeau

Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives (UMR 7291), CNRS & Aix-Marseille Universit, Centre St-Charles,
Case B, 3, place Victor-Hugo, 13331 Marseille cedex 03, France

Received 14 October 2013; accepted 14 October 2013

Available online 30 October 2013

KEYWORDS Summary In order to perceive and act in its environment, the individuals body and its inter-
Body schema; actions with the sensory and social environment are represented in the brain. This internal
Internal representation of the moving body segments is labeled the body schema. Throughout life, body
representations; schema develops based on the sensory information used by the moving body and by its inter-
Anticipation; actions with the environment including other people. Internal representations including body
Multisensory schema and representations of the outside world develop with learning and actions throughout
integration; ontogenesis and are constantly updated based on different sensory inputs. The aim of this review
Childhood and is to present some concepts and experimental data about body schema, internal representa-
adolescence tions and updating process during childhood and adolescence, as obtained using a neurosensory
approach. From our developmental studies, it was possible to explore the slow maturation of
the sensorimotor representations by examining the anticipatory control. By manipulating pro-
prioceptive and visual information, which are at the heart of the construction of body schema,
we wished to highlight notable differences between adolescents and young adults on both a
postural and perceptual level, which conrms the late maturation of multisensory integration
for central motor control.
2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Rsum Pour percevoir et agir dans son environnement, les caractristiques du corps de
MOTS CLS lindividu ainsi que ses interactions avec son milieu sont reprsents dans le cerveau. Cette
Schma corporel ; reprsentation interne du corps en action est appele le schma corporel. Au cours des diff-
Reprsentations rentes tapes de la vie, le schma corporel se construit sur la base des informations sensorielles
internes ; utilises par le corps en interaction dans son milieu aussi bien physique que social. Les reprsen-
Anticipation ; tations internes qui incluent la fois le schma corporel et les reprsentations du monde
extrieur, se dveloppent avec lapprentissage et lacquisition de nouvelles habilets motrices

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: christine.assaiante@univ-amu.fr (C. Assaiante).

0987-7053/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2013.10.125
4 C. Assaiante et al.

au cours de lontogense et sont constamment ractualises partir des diffrentes infor-

Intgration mations sensorielles. Le but de cette revue est de prsenter quelques concepts et rsultats
multisensorielle ; exprimentaux sur le schma corporel, les reprsentations internes et les processus de ractual-
Enfance et isation tudis au cours de lenfance et de ladolescence, selon une approche neurosensorielle.
adolescence partir de nos travaux dveloppementaux, il a t possible dexplorer la lente maturation des
reprsentations sensorimotrices ncessaires au dveloppement de la fonction danticipation.
En manipulant les informations proprioceptives et visuelles, qui sont au cur de la construction
du schma corporel, nous avons souhait mettre en avant les diffrences persistantes entre les
adolescents et les jeunes adultes aussi bien au niveau postural que perceptif qui conrment
ainsi la maturation tardive de lintgration multisensorielle au service du contrle moteur.
2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits rservs.

Introduction Body schema from a neurosensory approach

In everyday activities, we rely on signals coming from
our moving body to be able to respond to the space
around us and react rapidly to changing circumstances.
The perception-action coupling theory assumes that central
mechanisms provide a functional link between the sen-
sory representations activated during the perception of an
action and the motor representations used during the plan-
ning of the action [71]. From birth, one essential aspect
of motricity is to achieve a fundamental adaptive func-
tion: communication. In order to perceive and act in its
environment, the individuals body and its interactions with
the sensory and social environment are represented in the
brain. This internal representation of the moving body seg-
ments is labelled the body schema [26,45,55]. Body schema
is based on an internal representation of body geometry,
its dynamics and its orientation relative to verticality, to
the segments in relation to each other or to the environ-
ment [45]. Although the main function of the body schema
is to contribute to action execution, it is also involved in
action understanding and social interactions [16,60,72,73].
These functions arise from the fact that body schema relates
to action/perception coupling but also to environmental
communication, so that this concept became even central
to contemporary social cognitive theories as the embodied
mind theory and the theory of mind [51,73]. This cogni-
tive aspect of the body schema is not new since Piaget
[68] already proposed that perception of the external world
was based on internal representations of actions. Recent
studies have strengthened this view, bringing evidence that
internal representations of action are altered in individuals
with impaired social interaction in verbal and non-verbal
communication, as those with autism spectrum disorders
[43,46,56,80].
Throughout life, body schema develops based on the
sensory information used by the moving body and by its
interactions with the environment including other people
[24,92]. Moreover, internal representations including body
schema and representations of the outside world develop
with learning and actions throughout ontogenesis and are
constantly updated by different sensory inputs [6]. There-
fore, understanding how the body schema is built during
childhood and adolescence is clearly critical, to develop a
clearer understanding of both typical and atypical cognitive
motor development.
From a neurosensory approach, the body schema is
supramodal, relying on proprioceptive, tactile and visual
information [55]. These afferents produce primary,
modality-specic, internal representations that are after-
wards fused into a unique and coherent representation
[41,53]. However, all of the above sensory modalities do not
contribute evenly to body schema. Proprioception is likely
the most important modality to body schema building,
given that it provides direct information on the position and
the dynamics of body segments [38,57,75]. As soon as 1982,
Paillard [66] introduced a functional distinction between
body image, which is based on the identied body,
and body schema, which is based more on the situated
body. According to Paillard, proprioceptive information
is necessary for updating body schema, whereas extero-
ceptive information, mainly visual, underpins body image.
Proprioceptive information is therefore predominant for
body schema, whereas visual information is predominant
for representations of the environment.
Interestingly, patients suffering either peripheral neu-
ropathy or Duchenne muscular dystrophy whose propriocep-
tive function is altered or nonexistent are characterized by
alterations in body schema. As a consequence, they have
difculties in ne motor control that requires accurately
estimating spatial relationships between body segments
[11,49]. Moreover, a direct relationship was also reported
between proprioception and the morphokinetic component
of writing [1,76], which further supports the major contri-
bution of proprioception to spatial coding of movement, and
thus to body schema.
Internal representations
Computational theories of motor control have proposed
that the brain uses multiple internal models or internal
representations to ensure accurate control of movements
[93]. Whenever a motor command is issued, the appropri-
ate forward model predictor generates an estimation of
the consequences of the action [96], which is integrated
in the planning of the action to maintain postural con-
trol [30,95]. The theory of internal models stipulates that
specied neuronal networks link the motor commands to
the sensory signals from the moving body (forward model),
Body schema building during childhood and adolescence: A neurosensory approach
and the desired movements are linked to the appropri-
ate motor commands (inverse model) [25,96,98]. In this
way, the motor prediction is optimal and reproducible for
a movement that is planned and controlled in an anticipa-
tory fashion. This means that the forward model possesses
a sufcient quantity of information before the movement is
executed to accurately predict the sensory consequences of
the motor command [31,95]. In the case of motor imagery,
when the movement is not actually executed, the forward
model provides accurate information on the chronology of
the movement based on the motor commands predicted by
the inverse model [67,94].
Postural body schema [23] may therefore enable pos-
tural control to be organised in a proactive manner. This
control would be achieved based on internal representa-
tions at the interface of perception and action, such as
body geometry, ground reaction force, and body orienta-
tion in relation to the gravitational vertical. These internal
representations are constructed based on sensory informa-
tion that forms several reference points. Microgravity is a
tool of choice to investigate the body schema in adults
by transiently disturbing sensory informations and particu-
larly proprioceptive messages, which are determinant in the
body schema. During parabolic ights, it has been reported
that orientation and voluntary stabilisation of the head in
space during rhythmic lateral movements of the trunk per-
formed in microgravity and without vision could rely on body
schema, since the residual head movements could in this
case anticipate those of the trunk [3]. A recent study inves-
tigating motor imagery in microgravity [17] revealed that
internal models of action do not adapt to sudden new envi-
ronmental changes. In microgravity, the storage of afferent
information is insufcient to enable the recalibration of the
forward model. This study shows that the modication of the
sensorial afferents disturbs the updating of internal models.
This sheds new light on rehabilitation prospects for patients
with sensorial decits.
Ontogenesis of body schema and
representation of action
The building of body schema has been classically approached
from a psychological perspective, by examining the posi-
tion and conguration of the body as a volumetric object
in space. A more recent approach, including computa-
tional and cognitive neuroscience, gets information on
body schema from anticipatory functioning during volun-
tary motor action. The rst approach examines body schema
using tests in which the infant/child has to point parts of
his own body or of the body of other individuals [92]. A
main nding is that body schema is not innate but rather
develops progressively until the age of 8. Perceptions and
beliefs concerning another body become mature later, from
8 to 10 years old [68,92]. The second approach focuses on
the ability to anticipate postural perturbations during vol-
untary actions. Studies have evidenced that the anticipatory
function, which relies on internal models of action and body
schema, is not fully mature at 8 years of age [78,79]. Indeed
a recent study involving the bimanual load-lifting task [8]
reported that the maximal elbow rotation is enhanced in
adolescents compared to adults, suggesting an improvement
5
of postural forearm stabilisation after the age of 16 years.
Moreover, it appears that adolescent performances do not
differ greatly from those of children aged 7 to 8-years-
old, and that they are still far from equalling those of
adults. Thus, despite the early emergence of anticipatory
adjustments from the age of 3 years, feedforward control
continues to mature in late childhood and adolescence,
probably due to the slow construction of internal models
of action [39,79]. This development is more advanced in
girls, suggesting that puberty has a greater inuence. The
updating of internal models of action and body schema as
well as the development of the associated brain regions such
as the parietal cortex underlie the nal maturation of the
anticipatory function.
Accordingly, the body schema matures as we grow [6,79],
likely making updating of internal models of action more dif-
cult in children than in adults. Over recent years, motor
imagery studies have also provided evidence of the slow
renement of the internal forward models of action dur-
ing development [29]. In fact, mentally simulating actions
pertains to a category of processes similar to those that are
involved in programming and preparing real actions; that
is, it reects internal forward models of volitional move-
ments [48]. Using chronometry paradigms, studies showed
temporal similarities between imagined and executed move-
ments (e.g., moving a puppet to a location, drawing) in
children aged 7 to 10 years, supporting the proposal that
children already possess sophisticated internal models of
action [61,84]. Signicant correlations between the fea-
tures of executed hand movement and those of imagined
hand movements were also revealed in adolescents [18,19].
Importantly, an increase in the strength of association
between actual and imagined movements was also reported
from adolescence to adulthood, suggesting that internal
models of action keep undergoing renement until adult-
hood [18,19].
Updating process of internal representation as
assessed from sit-to-stand in children
Internal models need to be continually updated based on the
actions and experiences acquired by the subject in the envi-
ronment [95,97]. As body kinetics constantly change during
childhood, the representations and predictions of actions
made by the internal models also need to be updated. To
examine the development of this updating process, a recent
experiment from our group consisted in modifying the sup-
port on which sit-to-stand (STS) actions were performed
(Fig. 1A). The underlying hypothesis was that motor and
postural strategies would integrate these new constraints
in order to produce the most efcient movement while
maintaining balance. As predicted, adults immediately inte-
grated the new constraints of the support, which involved
a new body conguration, particularly the angle of the
ankle, exion-extension of the trunk at the different plan-
ning stages, postural control and performance of the task
[7].
In children, although adaptations were made, they were
incomplete (Fig. 1C and D). Indeed, our results show that in
contrast to the adults, the children did not decrease their
trunk exion when the support surface was tilted forwards
6 C. Assaiante et al.

Figure 1 A. Experimental set-up with the horizontal platform, the platform tilted 10 to the right and the platform tilted 10
forward during the sit-to-stand task. B. Medians and interquartiles of STS durations in children and adults with eyes opened (EO) or
closed (EC). C. Medians and interquartiles of trunk exion and trunk extension amplitudes in adults and children with eyes opened
(EO) or closed (EC) during the sit-to-stand task. D. Stick diagrams of the individual values of trunk orientation for the adults and
children with eyes open in the three support conditions.

during STS [21]. However, a signicant reduction in trunk
extension was observed in both children and adults. The chil-
dren only partially took into account the support constraints
when planning the STS movement, which was not sufcient
to improve their trunk vertical orientation in the upright
position. According to the ascending system described by
Mergner and Rosemeier [59] in their theoretical postural
model, the relationship between the body and the support
surface constitutes an essential reference frame for the
CNS, based on proprioceptive and vestibular information, for
the internal representation of postural orientation [52] and
movement [81]. In children, it is likely that this reference
frame is still too affected by constant morphological changes
for its use to be as efcient as in adults. Similar results
describing partial adaptations of the internal model and an
efcient use of anticipation and posture-movement coor-
dination have been widely reported in the developmental
literature. Various studies have also emphasised that coor-
dination between posture and movement is slow to mature,
and continues to develop into the latter stages of child-
hood [5,8,39,40,44,79]. Thus, despite a partial adaptation,
it appears that the updating of internal model of action is a
process that matures slowly throughout childhood.
Proprioception: relevant sensory information
for the development of body schema
Proprioception results from the integration of different
information from joint and muscle receptors situated all
over body, thus contributing to the awareness of body parts,
their movement and their position. Motion sense and posi-
tion sense, which dene kinaesthesia, are both involved in
postural control. Motion sense relates to the ability to detect
the direction, amplitude and speed of a movement, whereas
position sense relates to the ability to compare a nal posi-
tion with an initial position, i.e. to determine if a movement
has been performed [37,57]. Among the receptors involved
in proprioception, muscle spindle primary endings (mainly
involved in the detection of muscle contractions) contribute
greatly to the sense of both limb position and movement
[69]. It seems, however, that the central processes linked to
the integration of proprioceptive information for the control
of movements and positions are also different [70].
Muscle spindle primary endings are particularly sensi-
tive to vibratory stimulations. During the transcutaneous
application of a vibration to the tendons or muscles at a
Body schema building during childhood and adolescence: A neurosensory approach
specic frequency, action potentials are emitted at a simi-
lar frequency in the muscle receptors. The nerve message
generated is then transmitted to the central nervous sys-
tem (CNS), which interprets it as a muscle contraction. Two
outcomes are then possible according to whether or not bal-
ance is engaged. When the participants task is to maintain
balance, the erroneous interpretation of a muscle contrac-
tion by the CNS causes compensatory postural responses in
the entire postural chain [74]. Tendon vibrations applied to
the ankle muscles induce inclinations towards the vibrated
muscle. For example, a bilateral vibration of the Achilles
tendons, simulating a contraction of the soleus muscles and
therefore a forward body tilt, brings about a backward pos-
tural correction, which results in the body being brought
back to a balanced position by shortening the virtually
lengthened muscle [27,50,74]. However, illusory sensations
of displacement of the body or of the vibrated body part
have also been reported in experimental conditions where
balance is not engaged [15,38]. Thus, muscle-tendon vibra-
tion results in a kinaesthetic illusion of muscle contraction in
the absence of any real movement. These studies have con-
cluded that the illusions and postural responses induced by
muscle-tendon vibrations are behavioural specically tested
[91].
The stimulation of dynamic proprioception
disturbs postural control more strongly in
adolescents
During adolescence, it has been reported that propriocep-
tive contributions, when they are available, are neglected
in postural control [4,54,91]. However, it emerges from
a recent study [20] that the stimulation of propriocep-
tive information by tendon vibrations induces a greater
postural control disturbance in adolescents (aged 14 to
17 years) than in adults. Indeed, adolescents have a back-
ward postural reaction, which is not only quicker, but
also more pronounced throughout the vibration and even
when the vibration stops. These results, which appear to
contradict the literature, can be explained by the fact
that the slow oscillations protocol proposed by Viel et al.
[91], focused above all on activating the static propri-
oceptive information involved in the control of postural
orientation, whereas in this study, it was mainly dynamic
proprioceptive information that was stimulated and would
been more involved in the control of postural stability
[2].
Indeed, the largest oscillations reported in the adoles-
cents, particularly in the trunk, reveal a worse control of
postural stability than in adults, regardless of the visual
condition. Nevertheless, the presence of visual afferents sig-
nicantly reduced oscillations in adolescents, without even
affecting the postural performances of adults. This pos-
tural instability in adolescents, which conrms the role of
dynamic proprioceptive information in the control of stabil-
ity, could be interpreted as a transient decit in the central
integration of proprioceptive information. However, it is
important to note that variations in stability were especially
pronounced in the trunk in adolescents, whereas the con-
trol of the centre of pressure was similar to that of adults.
This result suggests that in any case, despite the amplitude
7
of the trunk oscillations, the control of balance was ensured
in adolescents, for whom no falls were recorded. The
trunk constitutes a reference point for postural control,
as much for the orientation element as for balance [58].
Indeed, stability of the trunk and pelvis constitutes the
main reference point prior to the acquisition of the major-
ity of posturokinetic activities during infancy [4]. In these
conditions, it is particularly interesting to note that it is
precisely the trunk that was disturbed in the adolescents
in our study, emphasising a transient loss of reference
point, which was probably linked to a disturbance of body
schema.
Illusory motion is age-sensitive
In the same developmental study [20], all the subjects
perceived illusory motion of their feet at least once. To
perform the perceptual task, the participants sat with the
eyes closed and with the vibrators placed on bilateral tib-
ialis anterior tendons. During the trial, the participants
were asked to move the right index nger on a support as
soon as they felt an illusory foot movement, by matching
direction and amplitude to that of the illusory movement.
After the trial, the participants had also to report on a
sheet of paper, on which was represented a range of motion
scale of the ankle, the maximum range of motion reached
by the ankle during the illusion, in order to also evalu-
ate the amplitude of the illusion. The amplitude of the
illusory movement in real time was greater in adolescents
than in adults and, above all, more frequent (see top and
down parts, Fig. 2). These results provide an initial trail
for exploring the effect of age on the perception of illusory
motion.
If we consider that the perception of illusory motion
is a preferred means for exploring body schema and its
modications during the different periods of life, it is com-
pletely logical to report that illusory motion is age-sensitive.
Goble et al. [33] showed that peak proprioceptive abil-
ity in the control of movements guided by proprioception
is only reached at the end of adolescence. Thus, ado-
lescents would nd difcult to control their movements
just by proprioception. For the same reasons, it could be
that they also nd difcult to perceive the nal illusory
position reached by their feet, with a tendency to overes-
timate the maximal inclination reached compared to that
reported by adults. These results could be linked to the fact
that the structures involved in the central integration of
dynamic proprioceptive information are not yet mature in
adolescence, which is a period of cortical maturation, par-
ticularly in the frontal and parietal regions, which are also
involved in motor function and the development of body
schema.
Perception of human movement and
perception-action coupling
The perception of biological movements (BM) is an innate
ability that has been demonstrated in newborns [82].
However, the perception and visual recognition of human
movements (HM) develops throughout life and requires
sensorimotor representations to enable the accurate
8 C. Assaiante et al.
Figure 2 Results from the illusory movement perception task in adolescents and adults. The upper part reports the occurrence
of illusory movements, while the lower part reports the maximum range of motion reached by the ankle during the illusion.
identication of the perceived actions. Four- to ve-month-
old infants with a very few motor experience can recognize
both HM [10,12,28] and biological motions [71,82]. Percep-
tion of HM is a robust and efcient ability of our visual system
but it has been shown that this ability is disrupted when
the HM is presented upside-down [86]. On the basis of the
latter results, Troje and Westhoff [88] demonstrated that
this disruption was not caused by the loss of the human
shape but rather by the inversed orientation of the grav-
ity vector. One study carried out by Jacobs et al. [47] tested
the ability of subjects to efciently categorise possible and
impossible HMs. These authors discovered that the subjects
performances were better with HM respecting the laws of
body biomechanics, highlighting the close link between the
visual and motor systems. In the same vein, Casile and
Giese [14] tested the hypothesis of perception-action cou-
pling by asking subjects to identify HM before and after
motor learning. The subjects carried out some of the walk-
ing variations before and after learning, with their eyes
closed. The results show that the subjects were better at
recognising a HM when they had acquired the motor learn-
ing required to perform it. Thus, other than an evident
motor function, body schema, through its close links with
perception-action coupling and communication with the
environment, fully contributes to the cognitive processes
enabling the actions of others and social interactions to be
interpreted [16,72]. This coupling of perception and action
has been widely investigated through the mirror-neuron sys-
tem (MNS). Lastly, the MNS, which seems to be functional in
six-month-old infants [65], also develops throughout child-
hood and adulthood as the result of sensorimotor experience
[90].
Recognition of human movement performed
with or without gravity: a developmental
approach
Based on the hypothesis that perception-action coupling
changes throughout ontogenesis, we recently investigated
during childhood and adolescence the ability to recognize
human movement using a paradigm where the participants
had to discern between human movements performed with
or without gravity [20]. Children aged 5 to 8 years, adoles-
cents aged 14 to 17 years and adults aged 20 to 40 years
participated to the study. The task was a two-alternative
forced-choice task where participants were sitting in front
of a computer. Specically, they had to rst look on a com-
puter monitor three-second silent point-light displays of a
human model performing movements (e.g. standing-up from
a chair, crouching, moving the arms, touching the oor
from a sited position) with or without gravity, and second
answer as fast as possible the question whether the move-
ments were performed on Earth (with gravity) or in
Space (without gravity) by pressing a button on a keyboard
(Fig. 3A). Point-light displays were used to prevent informa-
tion not related to movement per se (e.g. facial expression,
environmental information) from inuencing perception of
human movement.
Similarities and differences between children, adoles-
cents and adults emerged from this study. Except some
youngest participants, all our subjects successfully cat-
egorised human movements performed with or without
gravity. The robustness of this perceptual ability in chil-
dren is probably linked to the fact that an early sensitivity
Body schema building during childhood and adolescence: A neurosensory approach 9

Figure 3 A. Paradigm of visual recognition of human movements performed with or without gravity. After having provided an
answer to the question Is the movement performed on Earth or in Space? B. Percentage of correct answers. C. Effect of gravity
in correct answers. D. Corresponding reaction time. Data are presented as median and interquartile range in children, adolescents
and adults.

in infants to biological aspects of movement using point-
light displays was reported in the literature [10,12,28,82].
Moreover, despite the absence of gravity, the presented
movements conserved all the rules of human biomechanics
and were not in any case perceived as impossible move-
ments, which could have affected the performances of our
subjects [47]. Nevertheless, percentage of correct answers
revealed a clear developmental effect with lower perform-
ances (Fig. 3B) and higher reaction time (Fig. 3D) in children
with respect to both adolescents and adults. Lastly, from 7 to
8 years of age, children, as adolescents and adults reported
similar performances whatever the human movements per-
formed with or without gravity. By contrast, a signicant
difference between normo- and microgravity was reported
in the youngest subjects (Fig. 3C).
No signicant difference was found between the per-
formances of adolescents and adults in either the normo- or
the microgravity condition. This robustness of the percep-
tion of human movement during adolescence does not seem
to be impaired by the changes in body schema that occur
during adolescence. It emerges from our study that adoles-
cents, like adults, have similar sensorimotor performances
with regard to the items presented. Finally, the robustness
of vision that appeared in adolescents in terms of the privi-
leged contribution to postural control highlights its major
structural role, ensuring functional stability, in a period
characterised by a changing body and brain [20].
The body in the developing brain
Many regions in the brain are suspected of supporting the
internal models of action, including the prefrontal cor-
tex, the primary and premotor cortices, the supplementary
motor area, the parietal cortex, the basal ganglia and
the cerebellum [43,61,62,98]. These regions mature dur-
ing childhood through early adulthood, involving signicant
grey and white matter changes [9,36]. Moreover, stud-
ies on kinesthetic illusions in adults, which used tendon
vibration paradigms, provided important insights on brain
network underlying body schema [34,35,42,63,64,70,77].
Results revealed a complex network that includes:
brain areas commonly involved in motor planning and
execution (e.g., motor and premotor cortices, primary
somatosensory cortex, supplementary motor area, cere-
bellum);
higher-level regions responsible for executive functioning
and cognitive representations, including prefrontal and
parietal areas.
10
During adolescence, height and weight increases tran-
siently alter the representation of the body and, con-
sequently, motor control [19,91]. In addition, the brain
undergoes one of the nal major periods of maturation,
which has a crucial impact on the organisation of cortical
neuronal networks [13,89]. Moreover, a number of studies
suggest that body changes as well as the sensory informa-
tion used during the execution of an action inuence the
construction of body schema and internal models of action.
Lesion studies [83,98] and neuroimaging studies [31,85] sug-
gest that the notions of body schema and internal models of
action rely on a network involving the parietal cortex. During
adolescence, this region precisely undergoes development
of both the grey matter and the white matter with, in par-
ticular, synaptic elimination and myelination [32,36,87].
Thus lower ability in children as compared to adults in
updating the internal models of action to adapt the STS
movement to the new relationship between the body and
the support surface can also be interpreted in terms of brain
development [21]. Similarly, the updating of internal models
of action and body schema as well as the development of the
associated brain regions such as the parietal cortex could
underlie the nal maturation of the anticipatory function
[8].
Conclusion
Our developmental studies, together with the literature,
evidenced a slow maturation of the sensorimotor repre-
sentation during childhood and adolescence. In particular,
studies on anticipatory control and sensory integration high-
lighted notable differences between adolescents and young
adults on both a postural and perceptual level, which con-
rms the late maturation of multisensory integration for
central motor control.
As proposed by Jacques Paillard, a pioneer in the eld of
motor cognition [22], many recent studies bring evidence
that the body schema has some overlap with high-level
cognitive functions. Nevertheless, how these connections
between sensory messages and more cognitive represen-
tations of the body are constructed during ontogenesis is
still an open question. Futures studies using cerebral inves-
tigations on the development of the cerebral processes
involved in multisensory integration and anticipatory control
should enable us to make substantial progress in answering
this major question, thus establishing a link between brain
development and its functional involvements. This would
shed new light on rehabilitation of pediatric patients with
cognitivo-motor disorders.
Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no conicts of interest
concerning this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the children and adolescents
for their precious collaboration and to Dr. Jasmine Menant
for her helpful comments and for critically reviewing the
C. Assaiante et al.
manuscript. This work was supported by grants from the
French National Center of Scientic Research (CNRS), the
French National Center of Space Study (CNES) and the Cotrel
Foundation.
References
[1] Albert F, Ribot-Ciscar E, Fiocchi M, Bergenheim M, Roll
JP. Proprioceptive feedback in humans expresses motor
invariants during writing. Exp Brain Res 2005;164(2):
2429.
[2] Amblard B, Cremieux J, Marchand AR, Carblanc A. Lateral
orientation and stabilization of human stance: static versus
dynamic visual cues. Exp Brain Res 1985;61(1):2137.
[3] Amblard B, Assaiante C, Fabre JC, Mouchnino L, Massion J.
Voluntary head stabilization in space during oscillatory trunk
movements in the frontal plane performed in weightlessness.
Exp Brain Res 1997;114(2):21425.
[4] Assaiante C. Action and representation of action during child-
hood and adolescence: a functional approach. Neurophysiol
Clin 2012;42(12):4351.
[5] Assaiante C, Woollacott M, Amblard B. Development of postural
adjustment during gait initiation: kinematic and EMG analysis.
J Mot Behav 2000;32(3):21126.
[6] Assaiante C, Mallau S, Viel S, Jover M, Schmitz C. Development
of postural control in healthy children: a functional approach.
Neural Plast 2005;12(23):10918.
[7] Assaiante C, Chabeauti PY, Sveistrup H, Vaugoyeau M. Updat-
ing process of internal model of action as assessed from
motor and postural strategies in young adults. Hum Mov Sci
2011;30(2):22737.
[8] Barlaam F, Fortin C, Vaugoyeau M, Schmitz C, Assaiante C.
Development of action representation during adolescence as
assessed from anticipatory control in a bimanual load-lifting
task. Neuroscience 2012;221:5668.
[9] Barnea-Goraly N, Menon V, Eckert M, Tamm L, Bammer R,
Karchemskiy A, et al. White matter development during
childhood and adolescence: a cross-sectional diffusion tensor
imaging study. Cereb Cortex 2005;15(12):184854.
[10] Bertenthal BI, Proftt DR, Kramer SJ. Perception of biome-
chanical motions by infants: implementation of various
processing constraints. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform
1987;13(4):57785.
[11] Blouin J, Bard C, Teasdale N, Paillard J, Fleury M, Forget
R, et al. Reference systems for coding spatial information in
normal subjects and a deafferented patient. Exp Brain Res
1993;93(2):32431.
[12] Booth AE, Bertenthal BI, Pinto J. Perception of the sym-
metrical patterning of human gait by infants. Dev Psychol
2002;38(4):55463.
[13] Casey BJ, Tottenham N, Liston C, Durston S. Imaging the
developing brain: what have we learned about cognitive devel-
opment? Trends Cogn Sci 2005;9(3):10410.
[14] Casile A, Giese MA. Nonvisual motor training inuences biolog-
ical motion perception. Curr Biol 2006;16(1):6974.
[15] Caudron S, Boy F, Forestier N, Guerraz M. Inuence of
expectation on postural disturbance evoked by proprioceptive
stimulation. Exp Brain Res 2008;184(1):539.
[16] Centelles L, Assaiante C, Nazarian B, Anton JL, Schmitz C.
Recruitment of both the mirror and the mentalizing networks
when observing social interactions depicted by point-lights: a
neuroimaging study. PLoS One 2011;6(1):e15749.
[17] Chabeauti PY, Assaiante C, Vaugoyeau M. Extreme short-term
environmental constraints do not update internal models of
action as assessed from motor imagery in adults. Neuroscience
2012;222:6974.
Body schema building during childhood and adolescence: A neurosensory approach
[18] Choudhury S, Charman T, Bird V, Blakemore SJ. Adolescent
development of motor imagery in a visually guided pointing
task. Conscious Cogn 2007;16(4):88696.
[19] Choudhury S, Charman T, Bird V, Blakemore SJ. Development
of action representation during adolescence. Neuropsychologia
2007;45(2):25562.
[20] Cignetti F, Caudron S, Vaugoyeau M, Assaiante C. Body schema
disturbance in adolescence: from proprioceptive integration
to the perception of the human movement. J Learn Motor Dev
2013 [In press].
[21] Cignetti F, Chabeauti PY, Sveistrup H, Vaugoyeau M, Assaiante
C. Updating process of internal models of action as assessed
from motor and postural strategies in children. Neuroscience
2013;233:12738.
[22] Clarac F, Massion J, Stuart DG. Reections on Jacques Paillard
(19202006) a pioneer in the eld of motor cognition. Brain
Res Rev 2009;61(2):25680.
[23] Clement G, Gurnkel VS, Lestienne F, Lipshits MI, Popov KE.
Adaptation of postural control to weightlessness. Exp Brain Res
1984;57(1):6172.
[24] Decety J, Boisson D. Anticipation, reprsentations et schma
corporel la lumire des neurosciences cognitives. Ann
Readapt Med Phys 1997;40(2):6373.
[25] Desmurget M, Grafton S. Forward modeling allows feed-
back control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn Sci
2000;4(11):42331.
[26] Dijkerman HC, de Haan EH. Somatosensory processes
subserving perception and action. Behav Brain Sci
2007;30(2):189201.
[27] Eklund G. General features of vibration-induced effects on bal-
ance. Ups J Med Sci 1972;77(2):11224.
[28] Fox R, McDaniel C. The perception of biological motion by
human infants. Science 1982;218(4571):4867.
[29] Gabbard C. Studying action representation in children via
motor imagery. Brain Cogn 2009;71(3):2349.
[30] Gallistel CR. The organization of action: a new synthesis. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1980.
[31] Gerardin E, Sirigu A, Lehericy S, Poline JB, Gaymard B,
Marsault C, et al. Partially overlapping neural networks
for real and imagined hand movements. Cereb Cortex
2000;10(11):1093104.
[32] Giedd JN, Blumenthal J, Jeffries NO, Castellanos FX, Liu
H, Zijdenbos A, et al. Brain development during childhood
and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nat Neurosci
1999;2(10):8613.
[33] Goble DJ, Lewis CA, Hurvitz EA, Brown SH. Development of
upper limb proprioceptive accuracy in children and adoles-
cents. Hum Mov Sci 2005;24(2):15570.
[34] Goble DJ, Coxon JP, Van Impe A, Geurts M, Doumas M, Wen-
deroth N, et al. Brain activity during ankle proprioceptive
stimulation predicts balance performance in young and older
adults. J Neurosci 2011;31(45):1634452.
[35] Goble DJ, Coxon JP, Van Impe A, Geurts M, Van Hecke W,
Sunaert S, et al. The neural basis of central proprioceptive
processing in older versus younger adults: an important sensory
role for right putamen. Hum Brain Mapp 2012;33(4):895908.
[36] Gogtay N, Giedd JN, Lusk L, Hayashi KM, Greenstein D, Vaituzis
AC, et al. Dynamic mapping of human cortical development
during childhood through early adulthood. Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A 2004;101(21):81749.
[37] Goldscheider A. Physiologie des Muskelsinnes. Leipzig: Barth;
1898.
[38] Goodwin GM, McCloskey DI, Matthews PB. The contribution of
muscle afferents to kinaesthesia shown by vibration-induced
illusions of movement and by the effects of paralysing joint
afferents. Brain 1972;95(4):70548.
[39] Grasso R, Assaiante C, Prevost P, Berthoz A. Devel-
opment of anticipatory orienting strategies during
11
locomotor tasks in children. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1998;22(4):
5339.
[40] Haas G, Diener HC, Rapp H, Dichgans J. Development of feed-
back and feedforward control of upright stance. Dev Med Child
Neurol 1989;31(4):4818.
[41] Haggard P, Wolpert DM. Disorders of body scheme. In: Fre-
unnd HJ, Jeannerod M, Hallett M, editors. Higher-order motor
disorders: from neuroanatomy and neurobiology to clinical
neurology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
[42] Hagura N, Oouchida Y, Aramaki Y, Okada T, Matsumura M,
Sadato N, et al. Visuokinesthetic perception of hand move-
ment is mediated by cerebro-cerebellar interaction between
the left cerebellum and right parietal cortex. Cereb Cortex
2009;19(1):17686.
[43] Haswell CC, Izawa J, Dowell LR, Mostofsky SH, Shadmehr R.
Representation of internal models of action in the autistic
brain. Nat Neurosci 2009;12(8):9702.
[44] Hay L, Redon C. Feedforward versus feedback control in chil-
dren and adults subjected to a postural disturbance. Exp Brain
Res 1999;125(2):15362.
[45] Head H, Holmes G. Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesion.
Brain 1911;34:102254.
[46] Izawa J, Pekny SE, Marko MK, Haswell CC, Shadmehr R, Mostof-
sky SH. Motor learning relies on integrated sensory inputs in
ADHD, but over-selectively on proprioception in autism spec-
trum conditions. Autism Res 2012;5(2):12436.
[47] Jacobs A, Pinto J, Shiffrar M. Experience, context, and the
visual perception of human movement. J Exp Psychol Hum Per-
cept Perform 2004;30(5):82235.
[48] Jeannerod M. The cognitive neuroscience of action. Oxford:
Blackwell; 1997.
[49] Jover M, Schmitz C, Bosdure E, Chabrol B, Assaiante C. Antic-
ipatory postural adjustments in a bimanual load-lifting task
in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurosci Lett
2006;403(3):2715.
[50] Kavounoudias A, Gilhodes JC, Roll R, Roll JP. From balance regu-
lation to body orientation: two goals for muscle proprioceptive
information processing? Exp Brain Res 1999;124(1):808.
[51] Klin A, Jones W, Schultz R, Volkmar F. The enactive mind, or
from actions to cognition: lessons from autism. Philos Trans R
Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2003;358(1430):34560.
[52] Kluzik J, Peterka RJ, Horak FB. Adaptation of postural ori-
entation to changes in surface inclination. Exp Brain Res
2007;178(1):117.
[53] Lackner JR. Some proprioceptive inuences on the percep-
tual representation of body shape and orientation. Brain
1988;111(Pt 2):28197.
[54] Mallau S, Vaugoyeau M, Assaiante C. Postural Strategies and
Sensory Integration: No Turning Point between Childhood and
Adolescence. PLoS One 2010;5(9):e13078.
[55] Maravita A, Spence C, Driver J. Multisensory integration and
the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Curr Biol
2003;13(13):R5319.
[56] Martineau J, Schmitz C, Assaiante C, Blanc R, Barthelemy
C. Impairment of a cortical event-related desynchronisation
during a bimanual load-lifting task in children with autistic
disorder. Neurosci Lett 2004;367(3):298303.
[57] Massion J. Movement, posture and equilibrium: interaction and
coordination. Prog Neurobiol 1992;38(1):3556.
[58] Massion J. Postural control system. Curr Opin Neurobiol
1994;4(6):87787.
[59] Mergner T, Rosemeier T. Interaction of vestibular, somatosen-
sory and visual signals for postural control and motion
perception under terrestrial and microgravity conditions
a conceptual model. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 1998;28(12):
11835.
[60] Miall RC. Connecting mirror-neurons and forward models. Neu-
roreport 2003;14(17):21357.
12
[61] Molina M, Tijus C, Jouen F. The emergence of motor imagery
in children. J Exp Child Psychol 2008;99(3):196209.
[62] Munzert J, Lorey B, Zentgraf K. Cognitive motor processes: the
role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations.
Brain Res Rev 2009;60(2):30626.
[63] Naito E, Ehrsson HH, Geyer S, Zilles K, Roland PE. Illusory arm
movements activate cortical motor areas: a positron emission
tomography study. J Neurosci 1999;19(14):613444.
[64] Naito E, Nakashima T, Kito T, Aramaki Y, Okada T, Sadato N.
Human limb-specic and non-limb-specic brain representa-
tions during kinesthetic illusory movements of the upper and
lower extremities. Eur J Neurosci 2007;25(11):347687.
[65] Nystrom P. The infant mirror-neuron system studied with high
density EEG. Soc Neurosci 2008;3(34):33447.
[66] Paillard J. Le corps et ses langages despace : nouvelles con-
tributions psycho-physiologiques ltude du schma corporel.
In: Jeddi E, editor. Le corps en psychiatrie. Paris: Masson; 1982.
p. 5369.
[67] Papaxanthis C, Pozzo T, Skoura X, Schieppati M. Does order
and timing in performance of imagined and actual movements
affect the motor imagery process? The duration of walking and
writing task. Behav Brain Res 2002;134(12):20915.
[68] Piaget J. Motricit, perception et intelligence. Enfance
1965;2:914.
[69] Proske U, Gandevia SC. The kinaesthetic senses. J Physiol
2009;587(Pt 17):413946.
[70] Radovanovic S, Korotkov A, Ljubisavljevic M, Lyskov E, Thun-
berg J, Kataeva G, et al. Comparison of brain activity during
different types of proprioceptive inputs: a positron emission
tomography study. Exp Brain Res 2002;143(3):27685.
[71] Rizzolatti G, Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev
Neurosci 2004;27:16992.
[72] Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V. Neurophysiological mecha-
nisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action.
Nat Rev Neurosci 2001;2(9):66170.
[73] Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V. Motor and cognitive func-
tions of the ventral premotor cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol
2002;12(2):14954.
[74] Roll J, Roll R. From eye to foot. A proprioceptive chain involved
in postural control. In: Amblard B, Berthoz A, Clarac F, editors.
Posture and gait: development, adaptation and modulation.
Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1988. p. 15564.
[75] Roll JP, Roll R, Velay JL. Proprioception as a link between body
space and extra-personal space. In: Paillard J, editor. Brain and
space. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991. p. 11232.
[76] Roll JP, Albert F, Ribot-Ciscar E, Bergenheim M. Proprioceptive
signature of cursive writing in humans: a multi-population
coding. Exp Brain Res 2004;157(3):35968.
[77] Romaiguere P, Anton JL, Roth M, Casini L, Roll JP. Motor and
parietal cortical areas both underlie kinaesthesia. Brain Res
Cogn Brain Res 2003;16(1):7482.
[78] Schmitz C, Assaiante C. Developmental sequence in the acqui-
sition of anticipation during a new coordination in a bimanual
load-lifting task in children. Neurosci Lett 2002;330(3):
2158.
C. Assaiante et al.
[79] Schmitz C, Martin N, Assaiante C. Building anticipatory postural
adjustment during childhood: a kinematic and electromyo-
graphic analysis of unloading in children from 4 to 8 years of
age. Exp Brain Res 2002;142(3):35464.
[80] Schmitz C, Martineau J, Barthelemy C, Assaiante C. Motor con-
trol and children with autism: decit of anticipatory function?
Neurosci Lett 2003;348(1):1720.
[81] Scholz JP, Reisman D, Schoner G. Effects of varying task con-
straints on solutions to joint coordination in a sit-to-stand task.
Exp Brain Res 2001;141(4):485500.
[82] Simion F, Regolin L, Bulf H. A predisposition for biologi-
cal motion in the newborn baby. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2008;105(2):80913.
[83] Sirigu A, Duhamel JR, Cohen L, Pillon B, Dubois B, Agid Y. The
mental representation of hand movements after parietal cor-
tex damage. Science 1996;273(5281):15648.
[84] Skoura X, Vinter A, Papaxanthis C. Mentally simulated
motor actions in children. Dev Neuropsychol 2009;34(3):
35667.
[85] Stephan KM, Fink GR, Passingham RE, Silbersweig D, Ceballos-
Baumann AO, Frith CD, et al. Functional anatomy of the mental
representation of upper extremity movements in healthy sub-
jects. J Neurophysiol 1995;73(1):37386.
[86] Sumi S. Upside-down presentation of the Johansson moving
light-spot pattern. Perception 1984;13(3):2836.
[87] Toga AW, Thompson PM, Sowell ER. Mapping brain maturation.
Trends Neurosci 2006;29(3):14859.
[88] Troje NF, Westhoff C. The inversion effect in biological
motion perception: evidence for a life detector? Curr Biol
2006;16(8):8214.
[89] Uhlhaas PJ, Roux F, Rodriguez E, Rotarska-Jagiela A, Singer W.
Neural synchrony and the development of cortical networks.
Trends Cogn Sci 2010;14(2):7280.
[90] van Elk M, van Schie HT, Hunnius S, Vesper C, Bekkering
H. Youll never crawl alone: neurophysiological evidence for
experience-dependent motor resonance in infancy. Neuroim-
age 2008;43(4):80814.
[91] Viel S, Vaugoyeau M, Assaiante C. Adolescence: a transient
period of proprioceptive neglect in sensory integration of pos-
tural control. Motor Control 2009;13(1):2542.
[92] Wittling M. Ontogenesis of the corporeal schema in man. Ann
Psychol 1968;68(1):185208.
[93] Wolpert DM. Computational approaches to motor control.
Trends Cogn Sci 1997;1(6):20916.
[94] Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR. Motor prediction. Curr Biol
2001;11(18):R72932.
[95] Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z. Computational principles of move-
ment neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 2000;3 Suppl.:12127.
[96] Wolpert DM, Kawato M. Multiple paired forward and inverse
models for motor control. Neural Netw 1998;11(78):
131729.
[97] Wolpert DM, Miall RC. Forward models for physiological motor
control. Neural Netw 1996;9(8):126579.
[98] Wolpert DM, Miall RC, Kawato M. Internal models in the cere-
bellum. Trends Cogn Sci 1998;2(9):33847.