A sensational illusion: Vision-touch synaesthesia and the rubber hand paradigm

Davies, Anne M. Aimola; White, Rebekah C.

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.01.007

Cited by 44 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in contrast with recent findings indicating that touch responders (those reporting vicarious touch when observing touch) show structural brain differences relative to controls within the right TPJ (namely, reduced gray matter volume; Holle et al, 2013). Holle et al (2013) state that this area may contribute to atypical self-other processing found in touch responders (e.g., Aimola-Davies and White, 2013;Maister et al, 2013), which in turn may modulate vicarious experiences. Santiesteban and colleagues (2012) showed that the online control of self-other representations was improved during anodal stimulation (tDCS) of the rTPJ.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

The role of the right temporoparietal junction in the elicitation of vicarious experiences and detection accuracy while observing pain and touch

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study investigated the effects of observing pain and touch in others upon vicarious somatosensory experiences and the detection of subtle somatosensory stimuli.Furthermore, tDCS was used to assess the role of the right tempoparietal junction (rTPJ), as this brain region has been suggested to be involved in perspective taking and self-other distinction.Methods: Undergraduates (N=22) viewed videos depicting hands being touched, hands being pricked, and control scenes (same approaching movement as in the other video categories but without the painful/touching object), while experiencing vibrotactile stimuli themselves on the left, right, or both hands. Participants reported the location at which they felt a somatosensory stimulus. Vibrotactile stimuli and visual scenes were applied in a congruent or incongruent way. During three separate testing sessions, excitability of the rTPJ was modulated with tDCS (cathodal, anodal or sham). We calculated the proportion of correct responses and false alarms (i.e., number of trials in which a vicarious somatosensory experience was reported congruent to the site of the visual information. Conclusion:This study indicates that the observation of pain-related scenes compared to the observation of touch or control videos increases the likelihood that a somatosensory stimulus is detected. Contrary to our expectations, the rTPJ did not modulate detection accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

The role of the right temporoparietal junction in the elicitation of vicarious experiences and detection accuracy while observing pain and touch

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…right TPJ; mPFC), which would be consistent with suggestions that faulty self-other monitoring may lead to disinhibition of normal somatosensory mirror mechanisms (e.g. Aimola-Davies & White, 2012;Banissy, Cohen-Kadosh et al, 2009;Fitzgibbon et al, 2012). …”

Section: Differences Between Mirror-touch Synaesthetes and Controlssupporting

confidence: 89%

Functional and structural brain differences associated with mirror-touch synaesthesia

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article (Accepted Version) http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Holle, Henning, Banissy, Michael J and Ward, Jamie (2013) Functional and structural brain differences associated with mirror-touch synaesthesia. NeuroImage, 83. pp. 1041-1050. ISSN 1053 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/48266/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse:Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. AbstractObserving touch is known to activate regions of the somatosensory cortex but the interpretation of this finding is controversial (e.g. does it reflect the simulated action of touching or the simulated reception of touch?). For most people, observing touch is not linked to reported experiences of feeling touch but in some people it is (mirror-touch synaesthetes). We conducted an fMRI study in which participants (mirror-touch synaesthetes, controls) watched movies of stimuli (face, dummy, object) being touched or approached. In addition we examined whether mirror touch synaesthesia is associated with local changes of grey and white matter volume in the brain using VBM (Voxel-based Morphometry). Both synaesthetes and controls activated the somatosensory system (primary and secondary somatosensory cortices, SI and SII) when viewing touch, and the same regions were activated (by a separate localizer) when feeling touch -i.e. there is a mirror system for touch.However, when comparing the two groups, we found evidence that SII seems to play a particular important role in mirror-touch synaesthesia: in synaesthetes, but not in controls, posterior SII was active for watching touch to a face; activity in SII correlated with subjective intensity measures of mirror-touch synaesthesia (taken outside the scanner), and we observed an increase in grey matter olu e ithi the "II of the s aesthetes rai s. In addition, the synaesthetes showed hypo-activity when watching touch to a dummy in posterior SII. We conclude that the secondary somatosensory cortex has a key role in this form of synaesthesia.3

show abstract

“…While several studies have examined cognitive and perceptual characteristics of mirror-touch synesthesia (e.g., Banissy and Ward, 2007; Banissy et al, 2009, 2011; Holle et al, 2011; White and Aimola Davies, 2012; Aimola-Davies and White, 2013), there has been relatively less research that delineates the neural mechanisms that contribute to developmental mirror-touch. One common suggestion is that developmental mirror-touch synesthesia may be a function of atypical cortical excitability within neural regions supporting normal somatosensory mirroring.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of self-other representations and vicarious experiences of touch in mirror-touch synesthesia

Banissy¹,

Ward²

2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sensational illusion: Vision-touch synaesthesia and the rubber hand paradigm

Cited by 44 publications

References 48 publications

The role of the right temporoparietal junction in the elicitation of vicarious experiences and detection accuracy while observing pain and touch

The role of the right temporoparietal junction in the elicitation of vicarious experiences and detection accuracy while observing pain and touch

Functional and structural brain differences associated with mirror-touch synaesthesia

Mechanisms of self-other representations and vicarious experiences of touch in mirror-touch synesthesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About