  Humans and animals excel in combining information from multiple sensory
modalities, controlling their complex bodies, adapting to growth, failures, or
using tools. These capabilities are also highly desirable in robots. They are
displayed by machines to some extent - yet, as is so often the case, the
artificial creatures are lagging behind. The key foundation is an internal
representation of the body that the agent - human, animal, or robot - has
developed. In the biological realm, evidence has been accumulated by diverse
disciplines giving rise to the concepts of body image, body schema, and others.
In robotics, a model of the robot is an indispensable component that enables to
control the machine. In this article I compare the character of body
representations in biology with their robotic counterparts and relate that to
the differences in performance that we observe. I put forth a number of axes
regarding the nature of such body models: fixed vs. plastic, amodal vs. modal,
explicit vs. implicit, serial vs. parallel, modular vs. holistic, and
centralized vs. distributed. An interesting trend emerges: on many of the axes,
there is a sequence from robot body models, over body image, body schema, to
the body representation in lower animals like the octopus. In some sense,
robots have a lot in common with Ian Waterman - "the man who lost his body" -
in that they rely on an explicit, veridical body model (body image taken to the
extreme) and lack any implicit, multimodal representation (like the body
schema) of their bodies. I will then detail how robots can inform the
biological sciences dealing with body representations and finally, I will study
which of the features of the "body in the brain" should be transferred to
robots, giving rise to more adaptive and resilient, self-calibrating machines.
