1Synchronous, but not asynchronous, multisensory stimulation has been 2 successfully employed to manipulate the experience of body ownership, as in the 3 case of the rubber hand illusion. Hence, it has been assumed that the rubber 4 hand illusion is bound by the same temporal rules as in multisensory integration. 5However, empirical evidence of a direct link between the temporal limits on the 6 rubber hand illusion and those on multisensory integration is still lacking. Here 7 we provide the first comprehensive evidence that individual susceptibility to the 8 rubber hand illusion depends upon the individual temporal resolution in 9 multisensory perception, as indexed by the temporal binding window. In 10 particular, in two studies we showed that the degree of temporal asynchrony 11 necessary to prevent the induction of the rubber hand illusion depends upon the 12 individuals' sensitivity to perceiving asynchrony during visuo-tactile stimulation. 13That is, the larger the temporal binding window, as inferred from a simultaneity 14 judgment task, the higher the level of asynchrony tolerated in the rubber hand 15 illusion. Our results suggest that current neurocognitive models of body 16 ownership Introduction 23Body representation has been linked to the processing and integration of 24 multisensory signals (for reviews: (Blanke, 2012; Ehrsson, 2012). An 25 outstanding example of the pivotal role played by multisensory mechanisms in 26 body representation is the Rubber Hand Illusion (RHI; (Blanke, 2012; Botvinick 27 & Cohen, 1998; Ehrsson, 2012). This illusion is generated when temporally close 28 visual and tactile events occur on a visible rubber hand and the hidden 29 that the subjective ratings of the illusion and the proprioceptive drift were 67 significantly higher for short delays, up to 300 msec. In the present study we do a 68 step forward by formally associating sensitivity to the rubber hand illusion to 69 temporal sensitivity in multisensory integration. Such a finding would foster new 70 Costantini et al. Page 5 of 32investigations into the temporal unfolding of body ownership, an issue largely 71 neglected so far. 72In order to achieve this, we measured participants' TBWs through the use of a 73 simultaneity judgment task, employing visual and tactile stimuli. Next, in the 74 same participants, and employing the same stimuli, we measured susceptibility 75 to the RHI in the synchronous and asynchronous conditions. Importantly, in the 76 asynchronous condition we individualized the amount of asynchrony (i.e. 77Stimulus Onset Asynchrony, SOA) between the visual and the tactile stimuli, 78 based on the individuals' TBW. This means that the individuals' own TBW was 79 used to establish the asynchrony between the visual stimulus delivered on the 80 rubber hand and the tactile stimulus delivered on the participants' real hand. In 81 more detail, rather than using standard large asynchronies, as used in previous 82 research ( Tsakiris & Haggard, 2005) (usually up to 1000 ms), we selected, at th...

Many subjects cannot identify sour and bitter solutions which they can clearly taste. Subjects show a great deal of agreement on the taste of predominantly sweet and predominantly salt substances, but much less agreement on predominantly bitter and predominantly sour substances. The argument is put forward that we do not easily learn the sour/bitter distinction because few food substances taste strongly bitter. Because bitter has an unpleasant connotation a large minority tends to use it wrongly for substances that are unpleasantly sour.

No abstract

No abstract