<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Body representation and spatial abilities of preterm low birth weight preschool children</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Beatrix Lábadi (labadi.beatrix@pte.hu)</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs, Ifjúság u. 6. Pécs, 7627 Hungary Enikő Györkő Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs, Hungary Anna Beke Obstetrics and Gynaecology Clinic No.1, Semmelweis University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Budapest</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="HU">Hungary</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>401</fpage>
      <lpage>406</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The goal of the present study was to investigate the relationship between spatial ability and development of body representation in preterm low birth weight preschool fouryear-old children without neurological deficit and typically developing children who were matched by IQ and chronological age. Our findings indicate that children born prematurely with a normal cognitive level may have specific difficulties in all levels of body representation which may be associated with the spatial language production. These finding are relevant for understanding the qualitative aspects of body representation and provide practical consequences for early intervention of children born prematurely.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>body representation</kwd>
        <kwd>spatial memory</kwd>
        <kwd>spatial language</kwd>
        <kwd>preterm born</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Over the past decades, rapid development in the perinatal
and neonatal care has increased the survival rate of children
who are born very premature, however, there are potential
risks for long-term morbidity. Indeed, children born preterm
with low birth weight often have neuromotor problems and
are at risk for deficit in cognitive abilities in such
neuropsychological domains as memory, attention,
executive function and language
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8 ref9">(Mikkola et al. 2005;
Marlow, Henessy, Bracewell &amp; Wolke, 2007)</xref>
        . The
longitudinal studies emphasize that preterm birth with low
birth weight have long-lasting negative impact on the
cognitive abilities and academic skills in school-aged
children
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">(Conley &amp; Bennet, 2000)</xref>
        . However, cognitive
impairments often cannot be detected clearly until these
children begin school.
      </p>
      <p>Most psychological studies of cognitive functioning of
preterm children investigated the deficit in general domains
such as global intelligence, attention, perceptual-motor
functioning, executing functioning and memory. These
assessments demonstrated that children born preterm have
worse neuropsychological outcomes relative to typically
developed children. Relatively small number of studies
focused on the specific patterns of the cognitive abilities of
preterm children such as spatial abilities, and none of these
studies investigated the specific impairment in body
representation. Some studies reported that being born
prematurely with low birth weight is a risk for deficit in
spatial memory span and spatial working memory, as well
as recognition memory (e.g., Georgieff &amp; Nelson, 2002).</p>
      <p>
        Recently an extensive interest has been shown about the role
of bodily experience in cognitive processes. However, there
has been a widespread confusion about the nature of the
mental representation of body
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">(Gallagher, 1986)</xref>
        mostly due
to the variability of existing taxonomies and models.
According to the growing consensus in the field of
neuropsychology
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">(Sirigu, Grafman, Bressler, &amp;
Sunderland, 1991)</xref>
        as well as in developmental psychology
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">(Slaughter &amp; Heron, 2004)</xref>
        the three-level model is
supported which distinguishes (a) a sensori-motor
representation of the body; (b) a visual-spatial body
representation; and (c) a lexical-semantic representation of
the body. The sensori-motor level consists of a short-term
online representation of the body which is responsible for
body movement and not accessible to consciousness. The
visual-spatial representation consists of long-term and
general knowledge about the body topography including the
spatial localization of body parts. The lexical-semantic
representation involves the general knowledge of the body
and its functions involving the naming of body parts or
semantic knowledge about the body functions e.g. biological
background. The latter two levels of body representation are
accessible to consciousness.
      </p>
      <p>
        The available studies suggest that infants begin learning
about their bodies as newborns, but at that time they create
only a highly schematic representation of human body
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">(Quinn &amp; Eimas, 1998)</xref>
        . The detailed visual-spatial
representations of human body emerge around 15- to 18
months when they are capable to discriminate scrambled
human body image from non-scrambled body image
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">(Slaughter &amp; Heron, 2004)</xref>
        . Interestingly, visual-spatial
representation of faces emerges earlier than body
representation; even newborns are able to discriminate
human faces from scrambled faces (Johnson &amp; Morton,
1991), infants are likely to be born with an innate schema of
human faces rather than a human body. The detailed
visualspatial representation becomes available from the second or
third year of life when children begin to develop an explicit
representation of the body and recognize the human shape
with its distinctive configuration and spatial topography
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">(Brownell, Nichols, Svetlova, Zerwas &amp; Ramini, 2010)</xref>
        .
Based on the previous studies the visual-spatial
representation of the body is likely to derive from
sensorimotor representation. This early bodily experience is the
root of the developing body representation, cognitive
abilities as well as the self. The body awareness is not a sort
of separated entity in the world; rather it is a relational
between the body and either the physical and social
environment
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">(Rochat, 2010)</xref>
        . Even newborns begin to
develop the implicit bodily self which is embedded in their
environment. Shortly after the birth neonates begin to learn
the relation between their current capacities (e.g. motor
skills, bodily constraints) and the environmental conditions.
But an important question is raised whether children who
are born very prematurely before 30 gestational weeks and
spend their first month(s) in a sensory deprived environment
are able to develop a typical body representation.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Present study</title>
      <p>Children who were born prematurely and spent their first
weeks in incubator as a part of the intensive care have been
frequently reported deficit in sensori-motor domain. The
lack of early physical contact with the world prevents them
from collecting experience from their own bodies which
might specifically impact on the later body knowledge and
related cognitive abilities.</p>
      <p>This study was designed to answer specific questions about
different aspect of body representation in prematurely born
children aged between 4 to 5 years. There are both practical
and theoretical reasons for addressing the questions of body
representation. From a theoretical point of view, the
research attempts to provide further evidence for the
childhood development of body representation and its
relation to spatial cognition. The practical aspect of the
research is to provide deeper insights into the possible
deficit of body representation in preterm children for early
educational and rehabilitative intervention to improve the
preterm children’s cognitive and behavioral outcome.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Method</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Participants</title>
      <p>We studied 31 preterm children aged between 4 and 5 years,
who were born before 30 gestational weeks (Mean: 27.93
weeks, SD: 1.63; ranging from 25 to 30 gestational weeks)
and their birth weight ranged from 600 g to 1680 g (Mean:
1040g, SD: 241 g). Additional 12 children were discarded
because of fussiness (N =4) or incomplete task performance
on more than 3 tasks (N=8). Preterm children were enrolled
via the Department of Pediatric Neurology at the Obstetrics
and Gynaecology Clinic No.1 of Semmelweis University in
Budapest. Prior to the study children were assessed by a
clinical neuropsychologist and a pediatric neurologist who
ensured that children are within the normal range of
intellectual abilities without neurological symptoms,
however they are in the lower part of the normal range as
the most of the very preterm children (&lt; 30 gestational
week). The inclusion criteria for preterm children were the
following: (1) birth at a gestational age of 30 weeks or
younger; (2) no congenital abnormalities; (3) no measurable
neurological deficit; (4) no retinopathy or prematurity; (5)
no mental, intellectual disabilities.</p>
      <p>The control group included children born at term having
no history of perinatal problems. The full-term children with
typical developing characteristics (N=26) were born after 38
gestational weeks and individually matched with the
preterm sample for age, parents education and IQ
(Hungarian version of Brunet-Lezine Test). Full-term
children were recruited from the local preschool selected by
teachers on the average level of the class.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Materials and Procedure</title>
      <p>General procedures took place in a quiet lab. Each child
was tested individually. Three tasks were conducted to
assess body representation of children and additional two
tasks evaluated children’s spatial abilities.</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>Tasks for body representation</title>
        <p>Sensori-motor body representation - Fitting hands task.
Here, we investigated children’s ability to reason about their
body size, and shape relative to the objective physical
world. In this task children were required to use their own
sensori-motor body representation while fitting their actions
to the visual-spatial patterns of the world. Nevertheless, our
task included only the hands and it did not extend to the
whole body. This task required the child to insert their hand
into one of two apertures to take out a toy from a box. The
apertures were placed on the top of a box and varied due to
different visual-spatial patterns. To be able to solve the task,
the child required to recognize the spatial relationship of a
visual pattern of the aperture and his/her own body
properties and the bodily action. First, the child had to
analyze the perceptual constraints of the apertures then
compare them with their own hands properties. Finally, they
were required to choose the correct aperture, orient and
adjust their hands to the size, orientation and the shape of
the aperture in order to insert one hand into the box.
In this task we used a box (20 x 30 x 15 cm) with different
interchangeable lids. The size of the apertures was adjusted
to a typical 5-year-old child’s hand size. Each lid had two
apertures which varied within three dimensions: size, shape
and orientation. The apertures were presented side by side
on the lid and one of two apertures violated the physical
constraints, therefore children were prevented from inserting
their hands into this aperture, for example the aperture was
smaller than the child’s hand. Each child performed 9 trials
(three per dimension) and the order of the stimuli was
randomized.</p>
        <p>The experiment was recorded and the tapes were
timecoded by digital clock. The hand actions were also coded
and analyzed by two independent raters for the purpose of
assessing successful choice, reaction time and qualitative
analysis of hand laterality.</p>
        <p>
          Visual-spatial body representation - Scrambled body task
To investigate the visual-spatial body representation we
reproduced scrambled body images used by
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">Slaughter,
Heron &amp; Sim (2002</xref>
          ). However, we modified them by using
friendlier children figures instead of adult pictures, and we
also changed the presentation method. We used a pairwise
comparison method with two sets of human body pictures,
one for typical body and another for scrambled body. Each
set consisted of 6 six images, these were black and white
line drawings. The scrambled body set violated the typical
canonical human body shape, for example legs attached to
the shoulders or arms attached to the hip. The pairings of
typical and scrambled figure pictures and the side of
presentations were randomized across children. The children
were asked to decide which picture showed a typical body.
We measured the correct responses and analyzed the typical
errors.
        </p>
        <p>Lexical- semantic body representation - Body part
localization task</p>
        <p>This task investigated children’s ability to locate their
body parts on themselves. The task was adopted from adult
studies examining the body representation deficits in adults
with focal brain damages. Children were asked to point to
their own body parts as the examiner named them. This task
was divided into two parts, one of which referred to the
naming of the head parts and the other requested naming the
other body parts (we determined 7 standard locations on the
head and 24 locations on the body). The whole procedure
was recorded and two independent trained raters coded the
performance (within these categories: correct location,
different body part, refuse). Interraters reliability was .93.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-2">
        <title>Tasks for spatial abilities</title>
        <p>Spatial memory. The spatial memory task was adopted
from the Hungarian Version of Snijders – Oomen
Nonverbal Intelligence Scale for Young Children. This
subtest assesses the spatial location memory in young
children. The participant is presented with a little house
shape made of paper with six or ten windows depending on
the trials. The windows represent the hiding locations,
which are displayed in three horizontal rows with 6
windows, and L-shaped configuration with ten windows,
where these extra four windows are added to one side of the
house. In each trial, the experimenter places a black kitten
made of paper into one of the windows then quickly closes
all windows and covered the place with a screen for 6 s.
When the screen is removed the children are immediately
being requested to point the window where the kitten was
hid. The number of the correct responses was computed for
the analysis.</p>
        <p>Spatial language production</p>
        <p>Hungarian language has many possibilities to encode
spatial relations: suffixes, postpositions, verbal prefixes and
adverbs (Lukács, Pléh, &amp; Racsmány, 2007). In this study we
focus on postpositions that are used to encode cognitively
complex relations and postpositions providing cue to encode
the path type in three different forms according to the
dynamic aspect of coding the location and the path. For
each spatial relation, Hungarian has a static locative term,
and two dynamic forms, one encoding the goal or end of the
path; and the other relates to the source or starting point of
the path. All three types can be distinguished linguistically
but the same complexity provides good grounds for testing
path type effects on spatial language use, which is not
available in all languages - for example, English often uses
the same postpositions for static and goal relations.
In our study the spatial terms were elicited in an
experimental space consisting of a 1.5 x 1.5 m matrix
involving a white mug divided into 16 identical squares
with black lines (Fig. 1). We also used five little wooden
chairs made for children with different tops representing
animals (e.g. monkey) and fruits (e.g. pumpkin) as reference
objects. During the experiment these chairs were placed into
the matrix, while children were requested to answer 3 types
of questions encoding the path e.g. ’Where is the monkey?’
(static); ’Where do I put the melon?’ (goal); ’Where do I
take the apple from?’ (source). We tested the spatial term
production within either egocentric or allocentric frame of
reference. The experimenter was standing outside of the
matrix and put the target object (chair) to different positions
related to either one or two other objects (chairs) or the child
depending on the spatial frame of reference. In the
allocentric situation the child stood outside of the matrix
and he/she was required to respond to the experimenter’s
questions referring to the relations among the objects (e.g.
‘The apple is next to the melon’). While in the egocentric
situation child sat in the centre of the matrix on a chair and
requested to answer the question from his/her egocentric
viewpoint (e.g. ‘The apple is next to me’). Altogether 12
postpositions were tested in each situation. Children’s
scores were computed according to the number of correct
‘spatial postposition’ productions.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Results</title>
      <p>Sensori-motor body representation - Fitting hands to a
visual form task. The hand actions were analyzed due to the
number of correct choices and action duration.</p>
      <p>Correct insertion: For each trial, the correct attempts to
insert the hand into the aperture were coded and calculated
as a correct choice, but it was only the first attempt that was
counted. A repeated measures of ANOVA with
visualspatial features (form, size and orientation) as the within
subjects factor and groups (preterm and full-term) as the
between subject factor was conducted on the scores of the
correct responses. No significant difference was found
between the groups (F (1, 50) = 1.198 p =ns.). But a
significant effect emerged for visual-spatial feature (F (1,
50) = 26.162, p &lt; .000), namely, children tended to perform
better in trials of orientation than form or size trials. No
significant interaction between the group and visual-spatial
features was found.</p>
      <p>Time: we registered the overall duration of action, the time
from the appearance of the novel lid until the child took out
the toy from the box. The incorrect choices were excluded
from the analysis. Repeated measures of ANOVA (2 x 3 x
3) were used to compare preterm and full-term children as
between subject variable (preterm vs. full-term) and trials as
well as visual-spatial features (shape, orientation and size)
as within subject variables. We found significant differences
between the groups for the overall reaction time (F (1, 50) =
7.609, p &lt;.009). Preterm children (M= 3.93, SE =.198) spent
more time to solve this problem than full-term children
(M=3.02, SE = .193). We also found differences between
the visual-spatial categories (F (2,50) = 24.433, p&lt;.000),
where the pairwise comparison showed that the orientation
category (M=2.409, SE =.094) of the visual-spatial pattern
of the aperture differed either from the shape (M = 4.005,
SE = .205) or the size (M= 3.787, SE = .236) category.
Significant interaction was found among group, trial and
visual-spatial features (F (4, 50) =3.409, p &lt;.011).
Visual-spatial body representation - Scrambled body task
We compared the performance between the preterm and
full-term group based on the total scores. The analysis
revealed significant differences (F (1, 60) = 4.901; p&lt; .031).
The premature children’s performances were poorer (M=
5.04, SD= .79) than those of the control peers (M= 5.92,
SD= .37). These differences can be described by the
difficulties in the discrimination of the limbs.</p>
      <p>Body part localization. One-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted as appropriate on the measures of
both dimensions of body representation such as the head and
the whole body. Significant effect for both dimensions
emerged, and full-term children showed better performance
either for head dimension (F (1, 47) = 11.609; p&lt;.001) and
for the whole body dimension (F(1, 47) = 28.975; p&lt;.000).
Though, the scores of head were near the ceiling in both
groups (preterm: M =6.32, SD=.72; full-term: M= 6.94,
SD=.24). Children in the full-term group (M=19.17,
SD=2.40) exhibited higher performance than their preterm
peers (M=14.22, SD = 3.27).</p>
      <p>Spatial memory. Delayed recall score of the two groups
were analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA). The preterm children obtained a lower score (M
= 6.70 SD = 2.57) than did the control group (M=7.84, SD =
2.22), but no significant difference was found (F (1, 56) =
3.122, p= .08).</p>
      <p>Spatial language. A repeated measures of ANOVA (Type
III) for spatial language (egocentric, allocentric) as within
subjects factor and for groups as between subjects factor
was conducted. Significant effects were revealed for the
groups (F (1, 54) = 28.635 p &lt;.000). Children born full-term
achieved more than twice as many scores as prematurely
born children did. We also found differences between the
conditions (allocentric and egocentric; F(1, 54) = 11.916
p&lt;.001). In both groups children performed poorer in the
egocentric condition, they could use more postpositions
viewed from outside of the matrix.</p>
      <p>Relationship between body representation and spatial
abilities in preterm children. To determine whether preterm
children’s body representations were related to spatial
abilities Pearson correlations were calculated among these
variables with age partialled out from the calculation
(Table1). Surprisingly, we have not found association
between the performance in scrambled body task and the
spatial variables. However, positive association was found
between the performance in allocentric spatial language and
body localization test (r = .680, p &lt;.21); whereas the
egocentric spatial language showed negative correlation
with the meantime of hand action (r = -.606, p&lt;.048).
Furthermore, the egocentric spatial language showed
positive association with the mean correct choices in the
hand task (r = .692, p&lt;.018). In contrast, no significant
association was found between the performance in spatial
memory and different levels of body representation.
To determine to what body representation levels are related,
Pearson correlation were computed controlling for age (in
months) in the whole sample. The correlations were
calculated among each score of performance in each body
representation tasks: scrambled body, body part
localization, fitting hands. Significant correlation (see Table
5) were observed between the performance of scrambled
body task and performance in both body localization tasks
(for head r =.427, p &lt;.04; r =.471, p&lt;.04; for whole body r
=.471 p&lt;.02) as well as the scores of correct choices in hand
fitting task (r=.427, p &lt;.04). None of the variables of hand
fitting task related to the outcome of other body knowledge
variables. The variables of hand fitting task was associated
only with each other, namely, the means of the correct
responses negatively correlated with the mean time of
preadjustment (r= -.545, p&lt;.007).</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>Early development of body representation comparing
preterm and full-term children was investigated in the
current study. We reported evidence that children born very
prematurely, without major neurological deficits and with a
normal cognitive level, have specific difficulties in most of
the body related tasks evaluated at 4 years of age. We
further found that the reduced performance in body
representation is related to spatial language, but not to the
spatial memory within the preterm group.</p>
      <p>
        Relative to full-term controls, preterm children in the
present study showed reduced performance at all levels of
body knowledge. However, in the task of fitting hand,
where the children are requested to rely on their
sensorimotor body representation, both groups are equally good at
scaling their reaching action to size, form and orientation of
the aperture. By contrast, previous findings of younger
children (1.5 - 2 years) showed a poor performance in a
similar scaling tas
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">k (Ishak and Adolph, 2008</xref>
        ), where
toddlers frequently attempted to fit their hands into the
impossibly small holes. As Brownell et al (2010) suggested
the awareness of body to one’s own body size begins to
emerge in the second year of life but in very limited ways
and continues developing over the childhood.
      </p>
      <p>
        In contrast to our prediction, significant differences were not
found between the preterm and full-term groups regarding
their performance scores. But they differed in reaction time;
preterm children solve this task slower than the control. As
Milner and Goodale (1995) noted the reaction time of a
particular hand action refers to the transformation speed of
the visuospatial information into motor execution. This
process is the function of the dorsal stream, and the longer
reaction time in preterm children suggests an impairment of
dorsal system functioning. This finding is consistent with
other studies
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18 ref2">(Braddick, Atkinson and Wattam-Bell, 2003,
Taylor, Jakobson, Maurer and Lewis, 2009)</xref>
        suggesting the
increased vulnerability of the dorsal stream in children born
prematurely. The different amount of time in transforming
the visuospatial information into execution is likely to
account for the group differences. As we observed, preterm
children needed more time to take out the toy from the box
through the aperture hole because they had not adjusted
their hand to the visuospatial patterns in advance.
To study children’s knowledge of body topography we
created two age-appropriate modifications of previously
used tasks, we investigated the children’s topographic body
knowledge using typical human bodies versus scrambled
bodies portrayed in various postures. Preterm children
tended more frequently to fail to discriminate the canonical
body posture from the scrambled body, especially in that
case when the arms and legs were interchanged. Our
findings suggest that children aged 4 years are able to
discriminate the canonical human body confidently
regardless of the body posture. This result is not surprising,
because even toddlers are capable to discriminate the
scrambled body from the typical body (Slaughter et al.,
2003). In the other body topography (body part localization)
task children were asked to point body parts by name. The
findings showed that full-term children are superior. The
preterm children’s poor performances remind us of the
neuropsychological deficit at the level of lexical-semantic
body representation, patients (autotopagnosia) with damage
to the left parietal area have difficulties to localize their own
body parts when the examiner names them, but they can
identify parts of inanimate objects (Guariglia et al., 2002).
These results suggest dissociation between the topographic
representation and semantic representation of their own
body. Nevertheless, in our preterm sample we did not find
that the semantic representation is dissociated from the
visuospatial representation, because the children’s
performance of body part localization correlated with the
performance score in scrambled body task (for whole body r
=.405 p &lt; .04). Notably, the impairments in
movementrelated representations (hand fitting) of one’s body did not
correlate with the two other representational levels either in
the preterm sample or in the whole sample. Such findings
suggest that sensori-motor body representation might be a
distinct aspect of the body representation.
      </p>
      <p>The last question we addressed refers to the possible
relationship between the body-related representations and
spatial abilities in preterm children. Our data suggested that
the production of spatial language from two different spatial
viewpoints, using allocentric vs. egocentric frame of
reference, was associated with the body representations,
namely the preterm children who showed better
performance in the body location tasks obtained better
outcomes of spatial language production (within the
allocentric reference). Moreover, the performance of hand
fitting task also correlated with the spatial language
productions. It seems that the body might play an important
role in the spatial representation as the popular theory of
embodiment suggested. The body is used as a sort of
reference frame (head-feet, front-back, left-right) which is
mapped onto the embodied objects, for example ‘I am
behind the melon’ (Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). However,
the speaker can use a viewer-centered (egocentric or deictic)
or object-centered (allocentric or intrinsic) frame of
reference, and using the allocentric rather than egocentric
spatial reference frame to describe the spatial relations can
refer to the objective and viewpoint independent approach
of the world. In fact, preterm children’s production of
egocentric spatial language correlated with the
movementrelated body representation. We propose children who use
an egocentric view to describe the scene are involved
bodily. An impaired sensori-motor body representation is
not allowed to provide a stable egocentric reference point to
determine the locations.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>This study is the first to examine the different levels of body
knowledge associated with some spatial abilities in children
born very prematurely. Relative to full-term sample, preterm
children showed reduced performance in all levels of body
representation which are associated to the production of
spatial language.</p>
      <p>
        There were theoretical and practical reasons for questioning
this issue. From a theoretical point of view only limited
number of studies investigated the possible relationship
between the body representation and spatial cognition, and
none of them focused on the specific developmental risks of
preterm birth. Nevertheless, the embodiment theory
emphasizes the body experience as a ground of many
different psychological functions, such as emotions and
cognition. As Esther Thelen (2000) claimed the cognitive
processes emerge from the bodily experience as someone is
interacting with the world and this experience is constrained
by the particular motor and perceptual capabilities. On the
other hand, the practical reason of this study is to provide
indications for early intervention of cognitive abilities based
on the body knowledge that is thought to be a potential
predictor of learning disabilities. Our findings suggest that
the early body experience is very important for the later
development, because infants discover the world through
their bodies, e.g. how their bodies move in space, how their
bodies relate to the objects in the world
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">(Adolph and Berger,
2006)</xref>
        ; while they are capable to differentiate their bodies
form the physical world from the first year of the life.
Therefore, from a practical view, the early intervention to
improve these children’s body knowledge at all levels is
worthy of consideration.
      </p>
      <p>Limitations. Our results must be viewed with caution for
some reasons. First, we did not control the birth weight
relative to gestational weeks, our preterm sample involved
children with relatively wide range (600 g to 1680 g)
however previous studies showed that the birth weight (as a
degree of prematurity) is a good predictor of the future
cognitive abilities. Second, it is not clear whether the results
of preterm children are specific to body representations or
the problem in body representation itself is a consequence
of prior deficit. The future work should explore how the
body representation relates to prematurity specifically.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>Acknowledgments</title>
      <p>This research was supported by OTKA (PD – 109597)
research grant.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Adolph</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K. E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Berger</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Motor development</article-title>
          . In W. Damon &amp; R.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lerner</surname>
          </string-name>
          (Series Eds.) &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>D. Kuhn</surname>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>R. S. Siegler</surname>
          </string-name>
          (Vol. Eds.)
          <article-title>Handbook of child psychology: Vol 2: Cognition, perception, and language</article-title>
          (6th ed.) New York: Wiley,
          <fpage>161</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>213</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Braddick</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Atkinson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wattam-Bell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Normal and anomalous development of visual motion processing: Motion coherence and 'dorsal-stream vulnerability'</article-title>
          <source>Neuropsychologia</source>
          ,
          <volume>41</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1769</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1784</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Brownell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zerwas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ramini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          ).
          <article-title>“So big”: The development of body self-awareness in toddlers</article-title>
          .
          <source>Child Development</source>
          ,
          <volume>78</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1426</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1440</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Brownell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nichols</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Svetlova</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zerwas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ramini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
          <article-title>The head bone's connected to the neck bone: When do toddlers represent their own body topography?</article-title>
          <source>Child Development</source>
          ,
          <volume>81</volume>
          , (
          <issue>3</issue>
          )
          <fpage>797</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>810</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Conley</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bennett</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N. G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2000</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Is biology destiny? Birth weight and life chances</article-title>
          .
          <source>American Sociological Review</source>
          ,
          <volume>65</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>458</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>468</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gallagher</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1986</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Body Image and Body Schema: A Conceptual Clarification</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Journal of Mind and Behavior</source>
          <volume>7</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>541</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>554</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K. E.</given-names>
            , &amp;
            <surname>Lin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>G. C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Perceiving affordances for fitting through apertures</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception &amp; Performance</source>
          ,
          <volume>34</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1501</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1514</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Marlow</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Henessy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bracewell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wolke</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Motor and executive function at 6 years of age after extremely preterm birth</article-title>
          .
          <source>Pediatrics</source>
          ,
          <volume>120</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>793</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>804</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mikkola</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ritari</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Tommiska,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Salokorpi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Lehtonen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>L.</surname>
          </string-name>
          et al. (
          <year>2005</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Neurodevelopmental outcome at 5 years of age of a national cohort of extremely low birth weight nfants who were born in 1996-1997</article-title>
          . Pediatrics 116.
          <fpage>1391</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1400</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Moore</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Understanding self and others in the second year</article-title>
          . In. C. Brownell,
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          Kopp (Eds.)
          <article-title>Transitions in early socioemotional development: The toddler years</article-title>
          . New York: Guilford,
          <fpage>43</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>65</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Quinn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P. C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Eimas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P. D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2000</year>
          ).
          <article-title>The emergence of category representation during infancy: Are separated and conceptual process required</article-title>
          ?
          <source>Journal of Cognition and Development</source>
          ,
          <volume>1</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>55</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>61</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Quinn</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P. C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Eimas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P. D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1998</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Evidence for a global categorical representation of humans by young infants</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Experimental Child Psychology</source>
          ,
          <volume>69</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>151</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>174</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rochat</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
          <article-title>The innate sense of the body develops to become a public affair by 2-3 years</article-title>
          . Neuropsychologia,
          <volume>48</volume>
          .
          <fpage>738</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>745</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rose</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Feldman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1996</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Memory and processing speed in preterm children at 11 years: A comparison with full-terms</article-title>
          .
          <source>Child Development</source>
          ,
          <volume>67</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>2005</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>2021</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sirigu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Grafman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bressler</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sunderland</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1991</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Multiple representations contribute to body knowledge processing</article-title>
          .
          <source>Brain</source>
          ,
          <volume>114</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>629</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>642</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Slaughter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heron</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Origin and early development of human body knowledge</article-title>
          .
          <source>Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development</source>
          ,
          <volume>69</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Serial</given-names>
            <surname>No</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <volume>276</volume>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Slaughter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heron</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sim</surname>
          </string-name>
          , (
          <year>2002</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Development of preferences for the human body shape in infancy</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Cognition</source>
          <volume>85</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>B71</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>B81</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Taylor</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jakobson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L. S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maurer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lewis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T. L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Differential vulnetability of global motion, global form, and biological motion processing in full-term and preterm children</article-title>
          .
          <source>Neuropsychologia</source>
          ,
          <volume>2766</volume>
          -
          <fpage>2778</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>