A Test “M. Feldenkrais’ Measurments”: Psychometric Characteristics on the Russian Sample

The article presents data on the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test standardization for diagnosing distortions in the mental representation of respondents’ own body sizes. The test is a widely used means of disturbances diagnosing in the one’s own body perception. There is currently no data on its standardization and validation. The standardization sample consisted of 374 volunteers (100 men and 274 women, age M=19.87, SD=1.12) without chronic somatic or psychiatric diseases. An adapted version of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test including 26 scale measurements was used. The relative distortion in body part size mental representation was established by comparing its perceived and actual size. Using correlation research and averaging, 26 measurements were reduced to 17. Then the dimensionality was reduced by factor analysis, 5 factor variables were established (58.52% of explained variance, KMO = 0.843; Bartlett sphericity values = 1579.630; Df = 136; p < 0.001), which made up the multifactor structure of the test. All scales had high internal consistency. Additional 2 factors were identified for a more accurate study of distortions in limbs perception. The convergent and discriminant validity of the test has been established. The data have correlations with the biometric indicators of respondents, but do not have correlations with scales of self-assessment of appearance and body satisfaction. An algorithm for data collection and mathematical processing of the test is presented. The test is suitable for body sizes mental representation distortions diagnosing. It is possible to use the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test for scientific research, and for the psychotherapy practice.

Тест “Промеры по М. Фельденкрайзу”: Психометрические Характеристики на Русской Выборке

Варламов А.В.

Институт психологии РАН, г. Москва, Российская Федерация

Рязанский государственный медицинский университет имени академика И.П. Павлова, г. Рязань, Российская Федерация

В статье представлены данные о стандартизации теста «Промеры по М. Фельденкрайзу» для диагностики искажений ментальной репрезентации размеров собственного тела респондентов. Тест является широко используемым средством диагностики нарушений восприятия собственного тела. В настоящее время отсутствуют данные по его стандартизации и валидизации. Выборку стандартизации составили 374 добровольца (100 мужчин и 274 женщины, возраст M=19,87, SD=1,12) без хронических соматических и психических заболеваний. Использовалась адаптированная версия теста «Промеры по М. Фельденкрайзу», включающая 26 шкальных измерений. Относительное искажение ментального представления размеров частей тела устанавливалось путем сравнения их воспринимаемых и реальных размеров. С помощью корреляционного исследования и усреднения 26 измерений были сведены к 17. Затем размерность была снижена с помощью факторного анализа. Было установлено 5 факторных переменных (58,52% объясненной дисперсии, КМО = 0,843; критерий сферичности Бартлетта = 1579,630; Df = 136; p < 0,001), которые составили многофакторную структуру теста. Все шкалы обладают высокой внутренней согласованностью (альфа Кронбаха = 0.781). Для более точного изучения искажений восприятия конечностей были выделены дополнительные 2 фактора. Установлена конвергентная и дискриминантная валидность теста. Данные имеют корреляции с биометрическими показателями респондентов, но не имеют корреляций со шкалами самооценки внешности и удовлетворенности телом. Представлен алгоритм сбора и математической обработки данных теста в виде калькулятора Excel. Тест пригоден для диагностики искажений ментальных репрезентаций размеров тела. Тест может быть использован как в научных исследованиях, так и в психотерапевтической практике.

Ключевые слова:
Искажение ментальной репрезентации размеров собственного тела, тест «Промеры по М. Фельденкрайзу», стандартизация, валидизация

Introduction

Correcting a disturbed body image often becomes the task of a psychotherapist and rehabilitation specialist (Griffen et.al., 2018; Shal’ et.al., 2015). This may involve the use of self-esteem training (Cerea et.al., 2021), community-based programs (Fisher et.al., 2020), or movement-mindfulness-based techniques (Berland et.al., 2022). It becomes possible to achieve a change in the perception of one’s own body and increase its adequacy. However, systematic review shows that all these methods suffer from a lack of standardization in exposure procedure and diagnostic tools.

In fundamental science, the study of human bodily experience is also of interest. Distortions in the perception of one’s own body are often found in psychological pathologies. In addition, it has been established that they can occur during interaction with altered environmental conditions (Varlamov, 2022). In recent years, this issue has become particularly relevant due to the growing popularity of immersive technologies. It is obvious that the exoskeleton manipulator, the operator of an unmanned vehicle or the user of immersive VR is in a situation of altered perception of his/her own body. This is achieved through changing the mechanism of interaction with objects in the environment. Such experience should leave an imprint not only on a person’s perception of his/her own body, but also on the ways in which he uses it. These experiences can both expand and contract peripersonal space and alter the sense of physical boundaries (Lohmann et.al., 2018). Such changes inevitably affect the mind.

The study of bodily representation faces difficulties at the stage of selecting diagnostic tools (Tessari et.al., 2010). The use of questionnaires and questionnaires may be inadequate for the chosen experimental design. Registration of behavioral or psychophysiological changes is difficult from a technical point of view. When evaluating the behavioral methods used in various experiments, the researcher is faced with the problem of reproducing them. Patented software systems with closed source code are described. Instruments are often selected and tested based on the objectives of a particular study and are not reproducible in other settings (Longo, 2022).

The minimal stimulus change method is often used in research on body perception. The respondent independently adjusts the digital silhouette in accordance with his internal ideas about the features of his own body (Rebeko, 2010). A paper-and-pencil test may be used (Monthuy-Blanc et.al., 2020). Depending on the objectives of the experiment, the test assesses the perception of functional (limbs) or social (waist, pelvis, etc.) parts of the body. An alternative is the method of recording the motor activity of respondents using spatial trackers (Bhargava et.al., 2023). However, this requires the use of high-tech equipment.

Self-assessment methods are used to study attitudes toward bodily appearance (Us, 2021), as well as to diagnose satisfaction with one’s own body (Abramova, Chernov, 2022). A diagnostic tool based on choosing the most suitable silhouette is used (Nikishina et.al., 2017). Moreover, testing of repeated binary or multiple choice from a set of differing silhouettes is proposed as a statistically valid option (Irvine et.al., 2020). It is assumed that the use of such tool in immersive VR increases diagnostic accuracy, as it involves the mechanisms of space and objects egocentric perception (Monthuy-Blanc et.al., 2022).

I believe that the most accurate diagnostic tool is the assessment of proprioceptive drift, which is often used in experiments with the rubber hand illusion. Proprioceptive drift is recorded on objective data on movement accuracy (Tsakiris, Haggard, 2005). It reflects distortions in the respondent’s perceptions. However, using this method requires the organization of a narrowly targeted experiment (Day et.al., 2019).

The method of studying bodily perception with broader possibilities was proposed by M. Feldenkrais (Feldenkrais, 2015). I.A. Solovéva created the well-known practical test “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” on its basis (Solovéva, 2021). Later it was modified by other authors (Belaveshkin, 2015). When performing this test, the respondent consistently indicates the perceived sizes of parts of his/her own body using hands (Komolov, 2016; Belogay, Osipova, 2015). The test is performed with eyes closed, so the main control mechanism is the respondent’s proprioceptive sensitivity. I should note that proprioception is not the main channel for obtaining information about the external world. The authors propose using this test to diagnose “unconscious body image” (Solovéva, 2021). I believe that its data rather assesses the respondent’s own body size mental representation, since this test assesses proprioceptive drift. The perceptual error under study is based on the respondent’s feelings and can be corrected by him/her during the implementation of the test. Thus, the test reflects both habitual ideas about the body and distortions associated with the objective situation.

The purpose of this study is to psychometrically validate and standardize the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test. Based on the perception distortion regarding the actual size of respondent’s own body, I obtain unified data on the adequacy of its mental representation. In this way, it would be possible to apply the test into a wide range of experimental studies. I formulated 4 of hypotheses in this study:

H1. The test “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” has sufficient internal consistency. The nature of the mental representation distortions recorded with its help must be identical.

H2. The structure of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test is represented by several factors. I believe that distortions in the mental representation of one’s own sizes have specificity depending on the functional role of a particular part of the body.

H3. There are significant correlations between the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” scales and biometric indicators such as body mass index (BMI). Due to the scarcity of currently available methods for studying the mental representation of one’s own dimensions and their distortions, I believe that there is a connection between them and the biological parameters of respondents.

H4. There are no correlations between the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” scales and tests of the self-esteem component of body image. The mental representation of one’s own size is not associated with self-assessment of the respondents’ appearance.

Method

2.1. Sample
The standardization sample consisted of 374 respondents (100 men and 274 women, age M=19.87, SD=1.12). The study was conducted in Ryazan State Medical University in the period 2018-2024 years. Respondents had no diagnosed somatic or psychiatric chronic diseases. Respondents gave voluntary consent to participate in the study and then participated in testing. They could later be recruited to participate in related studies.

2.2. Measure

The “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test consists of 26 measurements (Table 1). The respondent is asked to close his/her eyes while standing.

Table 1. “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” Stimulus

1. Perceived Sizes
To assess the perceived size of one’s own body, the respondent is asked to close his/her eyes while standing. The respondent is asked to spread his/her hands so that the corresponding part of his/her body fits between them. The hands should not touch. Using other gestures is not recommended.
The researcher then measures this distance using a measuring tool (see Fig. 1). The obtained values are entered into the form (Table 1).

Figure 1. Testing with “M. Feldenkrais Measurements”

2. Actual Sizes

Researcher measures the actual size of the respondent’s body using the same tool. The rules for measuring anthropometric points are presented in Table 1.The questionnaire “Diagnostics of the Bodily Self” (DBS) was used to study the self-esteem component of the respondents’ body image (Lybko, 2008). The DBS questionnaire consists of 51 statements, combined according to the scales “Self-revelation of the bodily self” (“Self” scale, 22 statements), “Influence of another on the attitude towards one’s own body” (“Other” scale, 23 points) and the Lie scale (6 points). Respondents give binary answers (yes/no). The respondents’ attitude towards their own biological parameters, the physical capabilities of their own body and its attractiveness to others, as well as the dependence of the attitude towards their own body on its assessment by others is assessed. The questionnaire has proven test-retest reliability.The “Own Body Image Questionnaire” (OBIQ) questionnaire was used to clarify the results of the DBS questionnaire and assess respondents’ dissatisfaction with their own body (Skugarevsky, Sivukha, 2006). The questionnaire consists of 16 statements, answers are given on a Likert scale (0 – “never”, 1 – “sometimes”, 2 – “often”, 3 – “always”). The total score is calculated (max 48). The questionnaire has been standardized by the author and tested. It is a reliable practical tool for assessing dissatisfaction with one’s own body as a component of body image.

2.3. Procedures

Statistical treatment empirical data included descriptive statistics of raw data (Means, SD) and reliability statistics (Cronbach’s alpha) for the “M. Feldenkrais Measurments” scales. The test scores corresponded to the normal distribution (Skewness and Kurtosis between ±1). The reliability of the tested parts was assessed on the basis of correlations between contralateral body measurements. The structure of connections among test items was identified on the basis of Factor Analysis (Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization). Absolute loads of 1 or greater were included.A percentile standardization procedure was carried out to convert the raw scores into a single scale of S-scores. Evidence for concurrent validity of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test was demonstrated through significant correlations with body mass index (BMI) among respondents. Discriminatory validity of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test, according to theoretical concepts, implies the absence of significant correlations with bodily self-esteem indicators.

Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics is presented in Table 2. Test scores corresponded to the normal distribution (Means and standard deviations (SD) were reported for the male and female sub-samples and for the full sample). The reliability was in the acceptable range (Cronbach Alpha is 0.83).

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations (SD) and Alphas for the samples

where D is a distortion; PS – perceived size; AS – actual size.
Perceptual distortion was calculated for each measurement. This made it possible to compare relative errors in the perception of body size among respondents with different anthropometric parameters. The following standardization procedure is based on the relative perceptual distortion data.

The number of measurements (26) seems excessive for the purposes of scientific research. The number of measurements was reduced without changing the data obtaining procedure. Statistically significant correlations between measurements of the contralateral body parts made it possible to reduce the number of variables by averaging their values (see Table 3). The averaging procedure included pairs of measurements 4 and 5, 6 and 7, 8 and 9, 10 and 11, 12 and 13, 19 and 20, 21 and 22, 23 and 24, 25 and 26 (see Table 1).

Table 3. Correlation connections of contralateral body measurements according to the method of “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test

*** p<0.001

The indicators of all contralateral measurements of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” method have mutually significant positive correlations both for the perception test and for the actual sizes of the corresponding body parts. These measurements were averaged. Thus, the 26 surveyed measurements were reduced to 17. A comparative analysis of the perceived size and actual size of the respondents’ bodies was carried out. The results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparative analysis of Actual Sizes and Perceived Sizes

Table 3 shows that 14 of the 17 measurements are statistically significantly distorted. In mental representation, respondents perceive their own body size to be larger than it actually is. This confirms the empirical assumption of M. Feldenkrais, which predicted an exaggeration of 15-20% in the perception of body size of all respondents. (Feldenkrais, 2015). For the measurements “Wrist Length”, “Leg Length”, and “Feet Length” such exaggerations were not recorded. Probably, their perception is associated with the constant use of these body parts in everyday activities (working with hands and walking).
The use of the given processing option is possible during scientific research. “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” make it possible to accurately determine the strength and direction of the certain body part perceptual distortion. However, larger samples of respondents require a higher level of data generalization and standardization.

3.2. Calculating the relative distortion of the mental representation of one’s own body size.

The main calculated variable of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test is the body size perception distortion. It is calculated using the formula (1):

where D is a distortion; PS – perceived size; AS – actual size.
Perceptual distortion was calculated for each measurement. This made it possible to compare relative errors in the perception of body size among respondents with different anthropometric parameters. The following standardization procedure is based on the relative perceptual distortion data.

3.3. Factor Analysis

Descriptive statistics (KMO = 0.843; Bartlett sphericity values = 1579.630; Df = 136; p < 0.001) showed that there are sufficient grounds for applying Factor Analysis. H2 suggests that test structure is represented by multiple factors.. Proof of this position would have to indicate that distortions in the body sizes mental representation have different functional or adaptive significance for respondents. The results of Factor Analysis are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Results of Factor Analysis. Rotated component matrix

Based on eigenvalues above 1, Total 5 significant factors were identified, the total percentage of variance described 58.52% of the variability in the correlation matrix. The percentage of explained variance for each factor was 14.935, 12.328, 11.726, 10.160 and 9.371 respectively (Figure 2).

The first factor (14.935% of explained variance) combined distortions of measurements “Humerus Length” (0.457), “Forearm Length” (0.637), “Wrist Length” (0.463), “Hip Length” (0.758), “Leg Length” (0.728) and “Foot length” (0.559). This factor was called “Limb Length”. The second factor (12.328% of explained variance) combined distortions of measurements “Chest Width” (0.563), “Waist Width” (0.736) and “Pelvic Width” (0.720) and was called “Torso Width”. The third factor (11.726% of explained variance) combined distortions of measurements “Shoulder Length” (0.713), “Elbow Width” (0.783) and “Knee Width” (0.698) and was called “Joints”. The fourth factor (10.160% of explained variance) combined distortions of measurements “Head Height” (0.658), “Head Width” (0.737) and “Neck Length” (0.638) and was called “Head and Neck”. Finally, the fifth factor (9.371% of explained variance) combined distortions of measurements “Body Length from Neck to Navel” (0.792) and “Body Length from Navel to Groin” (0.563) and was called “Torso Length”. Implying the possible need to study distortions in the perception of arms and legs sizes separately, additional 2 factors were identified that combine the variables of the “Limb Length”. There were “Arm Length” factor (“Humerus Length”, “Forearm Length”, and “Wrist Length”) and “Leg Length” (“Thigh Length”, “Shin Length”, and “Foot Length”). They are not included in the main factor model, but are taken into account as optional in the further standardization procedure.

All 5 (+2) factors obtained the size of the limbs determines the zone of peripersonal space in which a person has the greatest freedom of action. The joints (shoulder, elbow and knee) are mobile. They are poorly differentiated in body sizes perception. The body width perception appears to reflect the social desirability of certain biological body proportions. Head and neck measurements, as well as body length measurements, appear to be combined based on the physical proximity of these indicators.

Based on the factor model, complex variables were obtained. The name of the complex variables corresponds to the name of the identified factors. The formula (2) for averaging measurement distortions is shown below:

where x_k is the value of the complex variable; x_n – values of distortied measurements included in its composition (see Table 6); n is the number of measurements included in its composition.

Table 6. Factor structure of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test

The values for converting averaged complex variables into S-Scores is presented below (see Table 7).

Table 7. Table for converting relative distortions of complex variables into S-Scores

Files for converting raw scores for “M. Feldenkrais Dimensions” in Russian and English are presented in supplementary materials.

3.4. Concurrent validity

There are no generally accepted methods for recording the relative distortion of mental representations of one’s own body size. Comparison with the results of instrumental or experimental methods was not possible in this study due to the lack of direct access to them. A significant correlation was found between the variable “Joints” and the body mass index (BMI) of respondents (see Table 8). The identified correlation may reflect the sensory nature of the distortions obtained using the test. These distortions are part of the mental representation of body size. They are not related to personal body image factors.

Table 8. Correlations of factor variables and body mass index (BMI). Number of respondents = 235

3.5. Discriminant validity

The mental representation of one’s own body size is not included in the self-esteem component of body image and should not have correlations with indicators of satisfaction with one’s own body or appearance. Table 9 presents the results of a correlation analysis of “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test complex variables with the scales of the “Diagnostics of the Bodily Self” (DBS) and “Own Body Image Questionnaire” (OBIQ) questionnaires. A total of 235 respondents from the total standardization sample were included in the correlation analysis (Mean Age= 19.83; SD= 0.94).

Table 9. Correlations of complex measurements with indicators of DBS and OBIQ methods. Number of respondents = 235

As can be seen from Table 10, there are no significant correlations of the complex variables of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test with the DBS and OBIQ test scales. The distortion of the mental representation of one’s own body size is not associated with either indicators of satisfaction with its size or with an indicator of social.

After standardizing of the complex variables, a further attempt was made to compare the actual and perceived body sizes of the respondents. The results are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Comparative analysis of Actual Sizes and Perceived Sizes (Factor Variables)

are consistent with the data in Table 4 and confirm the possibility of using the proposed method of data standardization in scientific research.

Here is an algorithm for using the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test:

1. Collecting data on respondents’ individual and perceived body dimensions in centimeters using stimulus material (see Table 1 and Figure 1).
2. Averaging of contralateral measurements (see Table 3).
3. Calculation of the relative extraction in mental representation of the respondents’ body sizes according to formula (1).
4. Complex variables calculation (5 or 7) according to formula (2) (see Table 6).
5. Complex variables translation in S-Scores (see Table 7).

“M. Feldenkrais Measurements” is suitable for use in measuring the dynamical changes in the respondents’ body sizes mental representation in various experimental conditions. This data has been used for several years in studies of distortions in the body sizes mental representation during a VR immersion (Varlamov, 2022).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” is a reliable tool for diagnosing distortions in the mental representation of one’s own body size. I found that the methodology has a five-component factor structure (H2) with the possibility of expanding it to 7 factors (scales). It has been established that the discovered factors combine measurements, the distortions of which are interrelated based on the functional significance of the corresponding body parts in the daily physical activity of respondents.

The results show that the proposed structure of the “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” has high internal consistency (H1) as well as discriminant validity (H4). Assessing the convergent validity of the method currently seems difficult due to the scarcity or inaccessibility of alternative methods mentioned in the scientific literature. A significant relationship was established between the factor variable “Joints” and the Body Mass Index (BMI) of respondents, which partially confirms (H3) of this study.

The “M. Feldenkrais Measurements” has rarely been mentioned in the scientific literature. Although it has rarely been used as an empirical research tool. The standardization carried out as part of this work will expand the possibilities for its application.

“M. Feldenkrais Measurements” test can be widely used to diagnose distortions in the respondents’ body mental representation when placed under special experimental conditions. Such conditions may include interaction with large-sized equipment, control of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic manipulators, advanced prostheses and exoskeletons, and computer virtual reality conditions.

Competing interests: The author declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

1. Abramova, E. A., & Chernov, D. N. (2022). Osobennosti Skhemy Tela I Telesnogo Obraza U Detej S Narusheniyami Funkcij Oporno-Dvigatel’nogo Apparata. Mezhdunarodnyj Nauchno-Issledovatel’skij Zhurnal, 12(126). https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2022.126.21 (In Russ.)
2. Belaveshkin, A. (2015, Sep. 6). OBRAZ SOBSTVENNOGO TELA: TEST FEL’DENKRAJZA. VRACh K.M.N. ANDREJ BELOVEShKIN. https://beloveshkin.substack.com/embed (In Russ.)
3. Belogaj, K. N., & Osipova, D. A. (2019). Predstavleniya o svoem tele devochek-podrostkov s raznym urovnem fizicheskoj aktivnosti. Izvestiya Irkutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya: Psihologiya, 27, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.26516/2304-1226.2019.27.3 (In Russ.)
4. Berland, R., Marques-Sule, E., Marín-Mateo, J. L., Moreno-Segura, N., López-Ridaura, A., & Sentandreu-Mañó, T. (2022). Effects of the Feldenkrais Method as a Physiotherapy Tool: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 13734. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113734
5. Bhargava, A., Venkatakrishnan, R., Venkatakrishnan, R., Lucaites, K., Solini, H., Robb, A. C., Pagano, C. C., & Babu, S. V. (2023). Can I Squeeze Through? Effects of Self-Avatars and Calibration in a Person-Plus-Virtual-Object System on Perceived Lateral Passability in VR. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(5), 2348–2357. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3247067
6. Cerea, S., Ghisi, M., Bottesi, G., Manoli, T., Carraro, E., & Doron, G. (2021). Cognitive Behavioral Training Using a Mobile Application Reduces Body Image-Related Symptoms in High-Risk Female University Students: A Randomized Controlled Study. Behavior Therapy, 52(1), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2020.04.002
7. Day, B., Ebrahimi, E., Hartman, L. S., Pagano, C. C., Robb, A. C., & Babu, S. V. (2019). Examining the effects of altered avatars on perception-action in virtual reality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000192
8. Feldenkrais, M. (2015). Awareness Through Movement: Health Exercises for Personal Growth. Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind.
9. Fisher, S., Abdullah, A., Charvin, I., Da Fonseca, D., & Bat-Pitault, F. (2020). Comparison of body image evaluation by virtual reality and paper-based figure rating scales in adolescents with anorexia nervosa: retrospective study. Eating and Weight Disorders: EWD, 25(3), 735–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-019-00680-1
10. Griffen, T. C., Naumann, E., & Hildebrandt, T. (2018). Mirror exposure therapy for body image disturbances and eating disorders: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 65, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.08.006
11. Irvine, K. R., Irvine, A. R., Maalin, N., McCarty, K., Cornelissen, K. K., Tovée, M. J., & Cornelissen, P. L. (2020). Using immersive virtual reality to modify body image. Body Image, 33, 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.03.007
12. Komolov, D. A. (2016). Ispol’zovanie metodiki telesnyh promerov po M. Fel’denkrajzu dlya issledovaniya neverbal’nogo kognitivnogo komponenta reprezentacii tela u detej s razlichnymi gruppami zdorov’ya. Uchenye Zapiski Universiteta Im. P.F. Lesgafta, 8(138), 265–267. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26602752 (In Russ.)
13. Lohmann, J., Schroeder, P. A., Nuerk, H. C., Plewnia, C., & Butz, M. V. (2018). How deep is your SNARC? Interactions between numerical magnitude, response hands, and reachability in peripersonal space. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(MAY). https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2018.00622
14. Longo, M. R. (2022). Distortion of mental body representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.11.005
15. Lybko, I. V. (2008). Metodika «Diagnostika telesnogo Ya». Psihologicheskaya Diagnostika, 3, 5–21. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=6265704248625158626&hl=en&oi=scholarr (In Russ.)
16. Monthuy-Blanc, J., Bouchard, S., Ouellet, M., Corno, G., Iceta, S., & Rousseau, M. (2020). “eLoriCorps Immersive Body Rating Scale”: Exploring the Assessment of Body Image Disturbances from Allocentric and Egocentric Perspectives. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(9), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM9092926
17. Monthuy-Blanc, J., Corno, G., Ouellet, M., Touré, F., Bourbeau, F., Rousseau, M., Charette, A., Moreau, N., Roy, N., Drapeau, V., Mathieu, M. E., & Bouchard, S. (2022). eLoriCorps Immersive Body Rating Scale and eLoriCorps Mobile Versions: Validation to Assess Body Image Disturbances from Allocentric and Egocentric Perspectives in a Nonclinical Sample of Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM11051156
18. Nikishina, E. A., Petrash, I. L., Kiselev, I. L., Hvostovoj, V. V., Nedzhafova, E. O., & Nikishina, E. I. (2017). Narushenie Skhemy Tela U Pacientov, Perenesshih Mastektomiyu. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriya: Lingvistika i Pedagogika, 7(23), 135–146. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30468321 (In Russ.)
19. Rebeko, T. (2010). Gender identity and body representation in women. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 31, 15–31.
20. Shal’, L. G., Komolov, D. A., & Abysova, Yu. O. (2015). Predstavleniya o sobstvennom tele u detej s trudnostyami obucheniya. Iniciativy XXI Veka, 1(2), 92–94. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23693475 (In Russ.)
21. Skugarevskij, O. A., & Sivuha, S. V. (2006). Obraz sobstvennogo tela: razrabotka instrumenta dlya ocenki. Psihologicheskij Zhurnal, 10(2), 40. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=13269093506304066704&hl=en&oi=scholarr (In Russ.)
22. Solov’eva, I. A. (2021). Kto my na samom dele? O bessoznatel’nom obraze tela. https://www.livelib.ru/book/1009873804-kto-my-na-samom-dele-o-bessoznatelnom-obraze-tela-irina-soloveva (In Russ.)
23. Tessari, A., Tsakiris, M., Borghi, A. M., & Serino, A. (2010). The sense of body: a multidisciplinary approach to body representation. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 643–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.12.004
24. Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2005). The Rubber Hand Illusion Revisited: Visuotactile Integration and Self-Attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80
25. Us, A. V. (2021). Analiz Vzaimosvyazi Samoocenki I Otnosheniya K Vneshnosti Lyudej Raznyh Vozrastnyh Grupp. Intellektual’nye Resursy – Regional’nomu Razvitiyu, 2, 233–237. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=46659169 (In Russ.)
26. Varlamov, A. V. (2022). Body Sizes Mental Representations Distortions during VR Immersions. Natural Systems of Mind, 2(3). https://doi.org/doi: 10.38098/nsom_2022_02_03_06

Supplemental material

Feld-ENG Feld-RUS