Mislocalizations of touch to a fake hand

Austen, Erin L.; Soto‐Faraco, Salvador; Enns, James T.; Kingstone, Alan

doi:10.3758/cabn.4.2.170

Cited by 69 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research has shown that when visual and proprioceptive cues regarding posture are put into conflict artificially (by means of the use of mirrors, video feedback, or artificial body parts), vision often dominates in terms of the final percept (e.g., Austen et al, 2004;Botvinick & Cohen, 1998;Maravita, Spence, Clarke, Husain, & Driver, 2000;Maravita, Spence, Sergent, & Driver, 2002;Nielsen, 1963;Tastevin, 1937). However, in all the previous experiments on selective tactile attention, either only proprioceptive cues (e.g., vision was prevented altogether) or combined congruent proprioceptive and visual cues (e.g., vision was allowed, and proprioception and vision provided correlated postural information) have been used.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It will be an interesting question for future research to examine whether a similar pattern of results would be found if the task were altered so that the participants were required to respond on the basis of the somatotopically defined location of the targets instead (i.e., by making one response to targets delivered to the index finger and another response to targets delivered to the thumbs, regardless of the posture adopted-i.e., palm up or palm down; cf. Austen, Soto-Faraco, Enns, & Kingstone, 2004).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Crucially, however, both intramodal tactile and cross-modal visuotactile selective attention effects show spatial modulation dependent on the relative location of targets and distractors. What's more, both effects are also sensitive to virtual changes in posture elicited by the use of either rubber hands or mirrors (see the present Experiment 5; see also Austen et al, 2004;Maravita et al, 2002;Pavani et al, 2000).…”

Section: Intramodal Versus Cross-modal Congruency Effects: Similaritimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tactile selective attention and body posture: Assessing the multisensory contributions of vision and proprioception

Soto‐Faraco

Ronald

Spence

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

102

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addressed the role of proprioceptive and visual cues to body posture during the deployment of tactile spatial attention. Participants made speeded elevation judgments (up vs. down) to vibrotactile targets presented to the finger or thumb of either hand, while attempting to ignore vibrotactile distractors presented to the opposite hand. The first two experiments established the validity of this paradigm and showed that congruency effects were stronger when the target hand was uncertain (Experiment 1) than when it was certain (Experiment 2). Varying the orientation of the hands revealed that these congruency effects were determined by the position of the target and distractor in external space, and not by the particular skin sites stimulated (Experiment 3). Congruency effects increased as the hands were brought closer together in the dark (Experiment 4), demonstrating the role of proprioceptive input in modulating tactile selective attention. This spatial modulation was also demonstrated when a mirror was used to alter the visually perceived separation between the hands (Experiment 5). These results suggest that tactile, spatially selective attention can operate according to an abstract spatial frame of reference, which is significantly modulated by multisensory contributions from both proprioception and vision.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intramodal Versus Cross-modal Congruency Effects: Similaritimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tactile selective attention and body posture: Assessing the multisensory contributions of vision and proprioception

Soto‐Faraco

Ronald

Spence

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

102

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The same visual and tactile stimulation delivered asynchronously has a quite different phenomenology. The rubber hand illusion provides one of the few means of manipulating embodiment, and has been so used in a number of recent studies (Armel & Ramachandran, 2003;Austen, Soto-Faraco, Enns, & Kingstone, 2004;Costantini & Haggard, 2007;Durgin et al, 2007;Ehrsson, Spence, & Passingham, 2004;Ehrsson, Holmes, & Passingham, 2005;Ehrsson et al, 2007;Farnè et al, 2000;Holmes, Snijders, & Spence, 2006;Kanayama, Sato, & Ohira, 2007;Pavani, Spence, & Driver, 2000;Press, Heyes, Haggard, & Eimer, in press;Rorden, Heutink, Greenfield, & Robertson, 1999;Schaefer, Flor, Heinze, & Rotte, 2006;Tsakiris, Prabhu, & Haggard, 2006;Tsakiris, Hesse, Boy, Haggard, & Fink, 2007a;Walton & Spence, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What is embodiment? A psychometric approach

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is it like to have a body? The present study takes a psychometric approach to this question. We collected structured introspective reports of the rubber hand illusion, to systematically investigate the structure of bodily self-consciousness. Participants observed a rubber hand that was stroked either synchronously or asynchronously with their own hand and then made proprioceptive judgments of the location of their own hand and used Likert scales to rate their agreement or disagreement with 27 statements relating to their subjective experience of the illusion. Principal components analysis of this data revealed four major components of the experience across conditions, which we interpret as: embodiment of rubber hand, loss of own hand, movement, and affect. In the asynchronous condition, an additional fifth component, deafference, was found. Secondary analysis of the embodiment of rubber hand component revealed three subcomponents in both conditions: ownership, location, and agency. The ownership and location components were independent significant predictors of proprioceptive biases induced by the illusion. These results suggest that psychometric tools may provide a rich method for studying the structure of conscious experience, and point the way towards an empirically rigorous phenomenology. Psychometrics of Embodiment 3

show abstract

“…Moreover, by presenting a visual stimulus close to a rubber hand, Farnè et al (2000) demonstrated that cross-modal visual-tactile extinction was stronger when the rubber hand was in a plausible posture relative to the patient's shoulder, as compared to when it was misaligned. Similar eVects of rubber hand posture and orientation have been shown with behavioural studies in healthy individuals (Austen et al 2004;Holmes et al 2006;Pavani et al 2000). These Wndings can be taken as favouring the idea that multisensory inputs processing consists of a weighting of the diVerent senses (e.g., Ernst and Banks 2002;Mon-Williams et al 1997;Ernst and BulthoV 2004), although this is not always the case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Optokinetic stimulation induces illusory movement of both out-of-the-body and on-the-body hand-held visual objects

Revol¹,

Farnè²,

Pisella³

et al. 2009

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coding of body part location may depend upon both visual and proprioceptive information, and allows targets to be localized with respect to the body. The present study investigates the interaction between visual and proprioceptive localization systems under conditions of multisensory conXict induced by optokinetic stimulation (OKS). Healthy subjects were asked to estimate the apparent motion speed of a visual target (LED) that could be located either in the extrapersonal space (visual encoding only, V), or at the same distance, but stuck on the subject's right index Wnger-tip (visual and proprioceptive encoding, V-P). Additionally, the multisensory condition was performed with the index Wnger kept in position both passively (V-P passive) and actively (V-P active). Results showed that the visual stimulus was always perceived to move, irrespective of its out-or on-the-body location. Moreover, this apparent motion speed varied consistently with the speed of the moving OKS background in all conditions. Surprisingly, no diVerences were found between V-P active and V-P passive conditions in the speed of apparent motion. The persistence of the visual illusion during the active posture maintenance reveals a novel condition in which vision totally dominates over proprioceptive information, suggesting that the hand-held visual stimulus was perceived as a purely visual, external object despite its contact with the hand.

show abstract

Mislocalizations of touch to a fake hand

Cited by 69 publications

References 20 publications

Tactile selective attention and body posture: Assessing the multisensory contributions of vision and proprioception

Tactile selective attention and body posture: Assessing the multisensory contributions of vision and proprioception

What is embodiment? A psychometric approach

Optokinetic stimulation induces illusory movement of both out-of-the-body and on-the-body hand-held visual objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About