The cutaneous rabbit revisited.

Flach, Rüdiger; Haggard, Patrick

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.717

Cited by 61 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar asymmetric reports have been observed in previous studies (Geldard, 1982;Flach and Haggard, 2006), whereas a symmetric report has also been observed (Kilgard and Merzenich, 1995). The latter study added one more reference pulse (P4) at L2 after P3; this four-tap sequence could be a cause of the symmetric report.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 50%

“…It was therefore argued that the cutaneous rabbit illusion is attributable to early somatotopic activity in S1. This argument is supported by a recent study using behavioral measurements and theoretical models (Flach and Haggard, 2006), but it has been challenged by reports that higher factors [e.g., selective attention (Kilgard and Merzenich, 1995) and across-arm effects (Eimer et al, 2005)] influence the illusory effect. The use of the latest brain-imaging techniques, however, has settled the debate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…To date, the cutaneous rabbit illusion has been observed only on the body (Geldard andSherrick, 1972, 1983;Geldard, 1982 accepted that the illusion is associated with early unimodal somatotopic activity in S1 (Geldard, 1982;Geldard and Sherrick, 1983;Blankenburg et al, 2006;Flach and Haggard, 2006). Thus, in both physical and neuronal contexts, the cutaneous rabbit illusion has been confined to the body since it was first reported (Geldard and Sherrick, 1972).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For half of the trials, L1 was on the right index finger and L2 was on the left index finger; the locations were reversed for the other half. The threetap sequence was optimal for generating the "reduced" rabbit (Flach and Haggard, 2006), which is a widely used simple version of the cutaneous rabbit illusion (Geldard, 1982;Geldard and Sherrick, 1983;Kilgard and Merzenich, 1995). In this sequence, P1 was temporally separated from P2 and P3 such that the sensation from P1 should not be affected by the latter two stimuli.…”

Section: Stimulation With a Stick (Experiments 1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The “Cutaneous Rabbit” Hopping out of the Body

Miyazaki¹,

Hirashima²,

Nozaki³

2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid sequential taps delivered first to one location and then to another on the skin create the somatosensory illusion that the tapping is occurring at intermediate locations between the actual stimulus sites, as if a small rabbit were hopping along the skin from the first site to the second (called the "cutaneous rabbit"). Previous behavioral studies have attributed this illusion to the early unimodal somatosensory body map. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study recently confirmed the association of the illusion with somatotopic activity in the primary somatosensory cortex. Thus, the cutaneous rabbit illusion has been confined to one's own body. In the present paper, however, we show that the cutaneous rabbit can "hop out of the body" onto an external object held by the subject. We delivered rapid sequential taps to the left and right index fingers. When the subjects held a stick such that it was laid across the tips of their index fingers and received the taps via the stick, they reported sensing the illusory taps in the space between the actual stimulus locations (i.e., along the stick). This suggests that the cutaneous rabbit effect involves not only the intrinsic somatotopic representation but also the representation of the extended body schema that results from body-object interactions.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 50%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stimulation With a Stick (Experiments 1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The “Cutaneous Rabbit” Hopping out of the Body

Miyazaki¹,

Hirashima²,

Nozaki³

2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of tactile localization show better localization around joints than in other regions, even when sets of stimuli span the joints (Cholewiak & Collins, 2003). Joints serve as attractors for localization (Flach & Haggard, 2006). Interestingly, they have an opposite, repulsive effect on tactile distance judgement.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segmenting the Body into Parts: Evidence from Biases in Tactile Perception

Vignemont

Majid

Jola

et al. 2009

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do we individuate body parts? Here, we investigated the effect of body segmentation between hand and arm in tactile and visual perception. In a first experiment, we showed that two tactile stimuli felt farther away when they were applied across the wrist than when they were applied within a single body part (palm or forearm), indicating a “category boundary effect”. In the following experiments, we excluded two hypotheses, which attributed tactile segmentation to other, nontactile factors. In Experiment 2, we showed that the boundary effect does not arise from motor cues. The effect was reduced during a motor task involving flexion and extension movements of the wrist joint. Action brings body parts together into functional units, instead of pulling them apart. In Experiments 3 and 4, we showed that the effect does not arise from perceptual cues of visual discontinuities. We did not find any segmentation effect for the visual percept of the body in Experiment 3, nor for a neutral shape in Experiment 4. We suggest that the mental representation of the body is structured in categorical body parts delineated by joints, and that this categorical representation modulates tactile spatial perception.

show abstract

Haptic perception

Kappers

Tiest

2013

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fueled by novel applications, interest in haptic perception is growing. This paper provides an overview of the state of the art of a number of important aspects of haptic perception. By means of touch we can not only perceive quite different material properties, such as roughness, compliance, friction, coldness and slipperiness, but we can also perceive spatial properties, such as shape, curvature, size and orientation. Moreover, the number of objects we have in our hand can be determined, either by counting or subitizing. All these aspects will be presented and discussed in this paper. Although our intuition tells us that touch provides us with veridical information about our environment, the existence of prominent haptic illusions will show otherwise. Knowledge about haptic perception is interesting from a fundamental viewpoint, but it also is of eminent importance in the technological development of haptic devices. At the end of this paper, a few recent applications will be presented. WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:357-374. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1238 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

show abstract

The cutaneous rabbit revisited.

Cited by 61 publications

References 44 publications

The “Cutaneous Rabbit” Hopping out of the Body

The “Cutaneous Rabbit” Hopping out of the Body

Segmenting the Body into Parts: Evidence from Biases in Tactile Perception

Haptic perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About