Gianluigi, I've just answered your other question (copy below), same applies here.

"The most widely accepted components remain the perceptive, the affective, and the cognitive"

Th assumption that these three are categorically different is an artifact of theory, not (necessarily) a natural truth. I caution you that by making these divisions you will obscure what you are looking for.

In addition the the list below, for this question I'd add -

Lakoff and Johnson - Philosophy in the Flesh

Johnson - the body in the mind

O'Regan, Myin and Noe (together and separately)

- copy -

Gianluigi,

I believe you are asking for research reports. I would like to caution you that there are several different paradigms in this area, and each will lead to different kinds hypotheses and research. I think it is imporntant to understand the breadth of the philosophical field. The best work I know on this is Anthony Chemero's Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. I would also encourage you to look at the writings of :

Ezequiel DiPaolo

Evan Thompson

Shaun Gallagher

Michael Wheeler

Giovanna Columbetti

John Sutton

The anthology Enaction (eds, Stewart, Gapenne, Dipaolo) is good.

and of course your courntymen Gallese and Rizzolati.

In addition to Simon's excellent suggestions, you might be interested in the the work of VS Ramachandran. Also these might be interesting: 

Casasanto, D. (2011). Different bodies, different minds: The body-specificity of language and thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6),

378–383.

Cuffari, E. C., Di Paolo, E., and De Jaegher, H. (2014). From participatory sense-making to language: there and back again.Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. doi:10.1007/s11097-014-9404-9

A classic study:

Runeson, S & Frykholm, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive Intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology 112, (4), 585-615

The following article might be an interesting addition to your reading! 

Edwards MG1, Wing AM, Stevens J, Humphreys GW. (2005) Knowing your nose better than your thumb: measures of over-grasp reveal that face-parts are special for grasping. Exp Brain Res. 161(1):72-80.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15480598

Dylan, Gianluigi, Daniel, all

Tahnks for theCasasanto ref - I didn't know it.

I second the Dipaolo and Jaegher suggestion.

Found this trying to find Dylan's first ref -

TEST: A Tropic, Embodied, and Situated

Theory of Cognition

Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (2014) 442–460

ISSN:1756-8757 print/1756-8765 online

DOI: 10.1111/tops.12024

http://www.psych.uncc.edu/pagoolka/tops2014p442.pdf

I didn't know M G Edwards' work. I'm coming to this form a more theoretical position so the clinical stuff hasn't been on my radar so much.

Also found this interesting org I was not aware of - they have an interesting collection of refs. including Front. Psychol., 26 June 2015 | http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00862

Evidence for the embodiment of space perception: concurrent hand but not arm action moderates reachability and egocentric distance perception.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00862/abstract

Thank you all for your interesting suggestions. I know that the topic is complex and can be read through different paradigms. I’m trying to find a line that can put together research reports from studies on the different components of body image distortion. Your suggestions are very useful and now I have a lot of stuff to work on. Thank you very much

you are welcome. Please keep me up to date with your progress, and good luck!