The supernumerary rubber hand illusion revisited: Perceived duplication of limbs and visuotactile events.

Fan, Chongyi; Coppi, Sara; Ehrsson, H. Henrik

doi:10.1037/xhp0000904

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 98 publications

(256 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the proportion of null responses (SCR < 0.01 mmho) in the current study was very low (0.02%, i.e., only 16 trials out of 800 had a raw value < 0.01 mmho); thus, we decided to analyze the magnitude responses. This is also in line with several of our previous studies as described above [ 16 , 54 ].…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 93%

Combination of visuo-tactile and visuo-vestibular correlations in illusory body ownership and self-motion sensations

Mattsson

Coppi²,

Chancel³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that illusory ownership over a mannequin’s body can be induced through synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation as well as through synchronous visuo-vestibular stimulation. The current study aimed to elucidate how three-way combinations of correlated visual, tactile and vestibular signals contribute to the senses of body ownership and self-motion. Visuo-tactile temporal congruence was manipulated by touching the mannequin’s body and the participant’s unseen real body on the trunk with a small object either synchronously or asynchronously. Visuo-vestibular temporal congruence was manipulated by synchronous or asynchronous presentation of a visual motion cue (the background rotating around the mannequin in one direction) and galvanic stimulation of the vestibular nerve generating a rotation sensation (in the same direction). The illusory experiences were quantified using a questionnaire; threat-evoked skin-conductance responses (SCRs) provided complementary indirect physiological evidence for the illusion. Ratings on the illusion questionnaire statement showed significant main effects of synchronous visuo-vestibular and synchronous visuo-tactile stimulations, suggesting that both of these pairs of bimodal correlations contribute to the ownership illusion. Interestingly, visuo-tactile synchrony dominated because synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation combined with asynchronous visuo-vestibular stimulation elicited a body ownership illusion of similar strength as when both bimodal combinations were synchronous. Moreover, both visuo-tactile and visuo-vestibular synchrony were associated with enhanced self-motion perception; self-motion sensations were even triggered when visuo-tactile synchrony was combined with visuo-vestibular asynchrony, suggesting that ownership enhanced the relevance of visual information as a self-motion cue. Finally, the SCR results suggest that synchronous stimulation of either modality pair led to a stronger illusion compared to the asynchronous conditions. Collectively, the results suggest that visuo-tactile temporal correlations have a stronger influence on body ownership than visuo-vestibular correlations and that ownership boosts self-motion perception. We present a Bayesian causal inference model that can explain how visuo-vestibular and visuo-tactile information are combined in multisensory own-body perception.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 93%

Combination of visuo-tactile and visuo-vestibular correlations in illusory body ownership and self-motion sensations

Mattsson

Coppi²,

Chancel³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example of a control item is "It seems as if I had more than one right hand" (Kalckert and Ehrsson, 2012, p.4), a sensation which is not expected to appear during the experiment. However, reports of "having more than one right hand" (Ehrsson, 2009;Fan et al, 2021) imply ownership over an additional hand, which questions the validity of such control items. Further, it is arguable whether participants might be able to distinguish control items from illusion items (Lush, 2020), which would introduce a bias even though it was controlled for.…”

Section: Methodological and Conceptual Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why we Should Rethink Our Approach to Embodiment and Presence

Forster

Karimpur

Fiehler

2022

Front. Virtual Real.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When interacting with objects in the environment, it feels natural to have a body which moves in accordance to our intentions. Virtual reality (VR) provides a tool to present users with an alternative virtual body and environment. In VR, humans embody the presented virtual body and feel present in the virtual environment. Thus, embodiment and presence frequently co-occur and share some communalities. Nevertheless, both processes have been hardly considered together. Here, we review the current literature on embodiment and presence and present a new conceptual framework, the Implied Body Framework (IBF), which unifies both processes into one single construct. The IBF can be used to generate new hypotheses to further improve the theoretical conceptualisation of embodiment and presence and thus, facilitate its transfer into application.

show abstract

“…An indirect physiological index of the RHI is to register changes in autonomic arousal that occur when a sharp or crushing object (e.g., a knife, syringe, or hammer) is seen threatening the rubber hand; this is called the threat-evoked skin conductance response (SCR) ( Armel and Ramachandran, 2003 ; Petkova and Ehrsson, 2009 ; Gentile et al, 2013 ; Fan et al, 2021 ). Critically, threat-evoked SCR from the illusion condition is compared to a control condition (e.g., asynchronous) because the mere sight of the threat stimuli triggers emotional and surprise reactions that influence the SCR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory Integration Dominates Hypnotisability and Expectations in the Rubber Hand Illusion

Slater

Ehrsson

2022

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some recent papers by P. Lush and colleagues have argued that the rubber hand illusion (RHI), where participants can feel a rubber hand as their own under appropriate multisensory stimulation, may be caused mainly by hypnotic suggestibility and expectations (demand characteristics). These papers rely primarily on a study with 353 participants who took part in a RHI experiment carried out in a classical way with brush stroking. Participants experienced a synchronous condition where the rubber hand was seen to be touched in synchrony with touch felt on their corresponding hidden real hand, or the touches were applied asynchronously as a control. Each participant had a related measure of their hypnotisability on a scale known as the Sussex-Waterloo Scale of Hypnotisability (SWASH). The authors found a correlation between the questionnaire ratings of the RHI in the synchronous condition and the SWASH score. From this, they concluded that the RHI is largely driven by suggestibility and further proposed that suggestibility and expectations may even entirely explain the RHI. Here we examine their claims in a series of extensive new analyses of their data. We find that at every level of SWASH, the synchronous stimulation results in greater levels of the illusion than the asynchronous condition; moreover, proprioceptive drift is greater in the synchronous case at every level of SWASH. Thus, while the level of hypnotisability does modestly influence the subjective reports (higher SWASH is associated with somewhat higher illusion ratings), the major difference between the synchronous and asynchronous stimulation is always present. Furthermore, by including in the model the participants’ expectancy ratings of how strongly they initially believed they would experience the RHI in the two conditions, we show that expectations had a very small effect on the illusion ratings; model comparisons further demonstrate that the multisensory condition is two-to-three-times as dominant as the other factors, with hypnotisability contributing modestly and expectations negligibly. Thus, although the results indicate that trait suggestibility may modulate the RHI, presumably through intersubject variations in top-down factors, the findings also suggest that the primary explanation for the RHI is as a multisensory bodily illusion.

show abstract

The supernumerary rubber hand illusion revisited: Perceived duplication of limbs and visuotactile events.

Cited by 17 publications

References 98 publications

Combination of visuo-tactile and visuo-vestibular correlations in illusory body ownership and self-motion sensations

Combination of visuo-tactile and visuo-vestibular correlations in illusory body ownership and self-motion sensations

Why we Should Rethink Our Approach to Embodiment and Presence

Multisensory Integration Dominates Hypnotisability and Expectations in the Rubber Hand Illusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About