2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2018.09.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Artificial hand illusions dynamics: Onset and fading of static rubber and virtual moving hand illusions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These delays may have been too long, such that any downregulation of the motor system could have 'worn off' by the cue to movement. Although we have no data on the duration of the after-effect of body disownership illusions, we know that the after-effects on limb ownership illusions [80] and full-body ownership illusions are quite longlived and can produce behavioural effects for many seconds after multisensory stimulation has stopped and the artificial body is no longer in view [18,81,82]. Lastly, it is also possible that the duration of visuotactile stimulation (13.5 seconds in experiment 1, 30 seconds in experiment 2 and 3) may have been too short to induce strong effects on later finger movement.…”
Section: Experimental Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…These delays may have been too long, such that any downregulation of the motor system could have 'worn off' by the cue to movement. Although we have no data on the duration of the after-effect of body disownership illusions, we know that the after-effects on limb ownership illusions [80] and full-body ownership illusions are quite longlived and can produce behavioural effects for many seconds after multisensory stimulation has stopped and the artificial body is no longer in view [18,81,82]. Lastly, it is also possible that the duration of visuotactile stimulation (13.5 seconds in experiment 1, 30 seconds in experiment 2 and 3) may have been too short to induce strong effects on later finger movement.…”
Section: Experimental Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…On the one hand, the cognitive system may tend to retain previously incorporated entities in the body representation, as is, for example, suggested by feelings of phantom limbs after amputation (Flor et al, 1995;Ramachandran, Rogers-Ramachandran, & Cobb, 1995). A persistence model builds on these findings and assumes that newly embodied information remains integrated in the body representation unless incoming information actively contradicts the perception of an entity as belonging to the body (Preston & Newport, 2011), or by removing the entity altogether (Newport & Gilpin, 2011;Perepelkina et al, 2018). An updating model, by contrast, builds on theories that describe the body representation as a set of multisensory bindings (Blanke, 2012;Hoffmann et al, 2010;Maravita, Spence, & Driver, 2003;Tsakiris, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, this compensatory effect of tactile information should depend on its complexity. Decreased complexity of spatiotemporal patterns of brush stroking-for instance, repetitive single-finger taps-renders visuo-tactile co-variance over space and time less informative (as illustrated by the fact that irregular and unpredictable stimulation patterns give rise to a more vivid illusion) [15]. Thus, we hypothesize that the magnitude of the effect of spatial distance on RHI strength will be proportional to the relative influence of proprioception, which should be greater when tactile information is more limited.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%