“…For the planned analysis of interaction effects, the simple effect of time was not significant in either image conditions in the younger group (sync: F(1, 28) = 3.21, p = .084, ηp 2 = .103, 95% CI [.82, 7.75]; async: F(1, 28) = 1.36, p = .253, ηp 2 = .046, 95% CI [-6.39, .69]), or in the older group (sync: F(1, 23) = .01, p = .994, ηp 2 < .001, 95% CI [-5.11, 5.06]; async: F(1, 23) = .47, p = .501, ηp 2 = .020, 95% CI [-3.11, 8.58]). However, given that the 95% CI does not include .0 in the sync condition in the younger group, it can be inferred that the temporal characteristics of body perception were similar to the previous study (Teramoto, 2022). Regarding the simple effect of the image condition, only under the 0 s condition was proprioceptive drift in the sync condition significantly larger than in the async condition, in the younger group (0 s: F(1, 28) = 6.61, p = .016, ηp 2 = .191, 95% CI [2.88,10.30]; 30 s: F(1, 28) = .06, p = .809, ηp 2 = .002, 95% CI [-3.77, 2.68]), and also in the older group (0 s: F(1, 23) = .93, p = .345, ηp 2 = .039, 95% CI [-6.74, 1.38]; 30 s: F(1, 23) < .01, p = .968, ηp 2 < .001, 95% CI [-2.81, 2.97]).…”