The use of realistic and mechanical hands in the rubber hand illusion, and the relationship to hemispheric differences

Consciousness and Cognition

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 89-99

  Bertamini, Marco ^a   O'Sullivan, Noreen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Embodiment; Laterality; Multi sensory integration; Rubber hand illusion

Indexed keywords

RUBBER;

ARTICLE; HAND; HAND PROSTHESIS; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; ILLUSION; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; RUBBER HAND ILLUSION; SEX DIFFERENCE; ADULT; BODY IMAGE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROPRIOCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; BODY IMAGE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HAND; HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; MALE; PROPRIOCEPTION; SEX FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84900826975     PISSN: 10538100     EISSN: 10902376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.04.010     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Armel K.C., Ramachandran V. Projecting sensations to external objects: Evidence from skin conductance response. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B: Biological Sciences 2003, 270(1523):1499-1506. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2364.
2. Austen E.L., Soto-Faraco S., Enns J.T., Kingstone A. Mislocalizations of touch to a fake hand. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 2004, 4(2):170-181. 10.3758/CABN.4.2.170.
3. Bertamini M., Berselli N., Bode C., Lawson R., Wong L.T. The rubber hand illusion in a mirror. Consciousness and Cognition 2011, 20(4):1108-1119. 10.1016/j.concog.2011.04.006.
4. Botvinick M., Cohen J. Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see. Nature 1998, 391:756. 10.1038/35784.
5. Bruno N., Bertamini M. Haptic perception after a change in hand size. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48(6):1853-1856. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.006.
6. Cardinali L., Frassinetti F., Brozzoli C., Urquizar C., Roy A.C., Farne A. Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Current Biology 2009, 19(12). pp. R478-479. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.009.
7. Cash T.F., Deagle E.A. The nature and extent of body-image disturbances in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorder 1998, 22(2):107-126.
8. Cipollini B., Hsiao J., Cottrell G. Connectivity asymmetry can explain visual hemispheric asymmetries in local/global, face, and spatial frequency processing. Cognitive Science Society 2012.
9. Costantini M., Haggard P. The rubber hand illusion: Sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Consciousness and Cognition 2007, 16(2):229-240. 10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.001.
10. Deacon D., Grose-Fifer J., Yang C., Stanick V., Hewitt S., Dynowska A. Evidence for a new conceptualization of semantic representation in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Cortex 2004, 40:467-478. 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70140-0.
11. Ehrsson H.H., Spence C., Passingham R.E. That's my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 2004, 305(5685):875. 10.1126/science.1097011.
12. Feinberg T.E., Keenan J.P. Where in the brain is the self ?. Consciousness and Cognition 2005, 14:661-678. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.01.002.
13. Gallagher P., Dagenbach D. Manipulating noise frequencies alters hemispheric contribution to decision making. Brain and Cognition 2007, 64:42-49. 10.1016/j.bandc.2006. 10.004.
14. Gillihan S.J., Farah M.J. Is self special? A critical review of evidence from experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin 2005, 131(1):76-97. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.76.
15. Haans A., Ijsselsteijn W.A., de Kort I.A. The effect of similarities in skin texture and hand shape on perceived ownership of a fake limb. Body Image 2008, 5(4):389-394. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.04.003.
16. Hohwy J., Paton B. Explaining away the body: Experiences of supernaturally caused touch and touch on non-hand objects within the rubber hand illusion. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(2):e9416. 10.1371/journal.pone.0009416.
17. Hsiao, J., Shahbazi, R., & Cottrell, G. (2008). Hemispheric asymmetry in visual perception arises from differential encoding beyond the sensory level. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
18. Hutsler J., Galuske R.A.W. Hemispheric asymmetries in cerebral cortical networks. Trends in Neurosciences 2003, 26(8):429-435. 10.1016/S0166-2236(03)00198-X.
19. Jager G., Postma A. On the hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial relations: A review of the current evidence. Neuropsychologica 2003, 41:504-515. 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00086-6.
20. Jewell G., McCourt M.E. Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38:93-110. 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00045-7.
21. Karnath H.O., Baier B. Right insula for our sense of limb ownership and self-awareness of actions. Brain Structure and Function 2010, 214:411-417. 10.1007/ s00429-010-0250-4.
22. Keenan J.P., Nelson A., O'Connor M., Pascual-Leone A. Self-recognition and the right hemisphere. Nature 2001, 409:305.
23. Kitadono K., Humphreys Short-term effects of the rubber hand illusion on aspects of visual neglect. Neurocase: The Neural Basis of Cognition 2007, 13:260-271. doi:10.1080/13554790701625815.
24. Kosslyn S.M., Chabris C.F., Marsolek C.J., Koenig O. Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: Computational analyses and computer simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 1992, 18:562-577. 10.1037//0096-1523.18.2.562.
25. Lloyd D.M. Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand. Brain and Cognition 2007, 64(1):104-109. 10.1016/j.bandc.2006.09.013.
26. Longo M.R., Cardozo S., Haggard P. Visual enhancement of touch and the bodily self. Consciousness and Cognition 2008, 17:1181-1191. 10.1016/ j.concog.2008.01.001.
27. McElroy T., Seta J.J. On the other hand am I rational? Hemispheric activation and the framing effect. Brain and Cognition 2004, 55:572-580. 10.1016/ j.bandc.2004.04.002.
28. Mevorach C., Humphreys G.W., Shalev L. Opposite biases in salience-based selection for the left and right posterior parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience 2006, 9(6):740-742. 10.1038/nn1709.
29. Mussap A.J., Salton N. A rubber-hand illusion reveals a relationship between perceptual body image and unhealthy body change. Journal of Health Psychology 2006, 11(4):627-639. 10.1177/1359105306065022.
30. Niebauer C.L., Aselage J., Schutte C. Hemispheric interaction and consciousness: Degree of handedness predicts the intensity of a sensory illusion. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition 2002, 7:85-96. 10.1080/13576500143000159.
31. Ocklenburg S., Peterburs J., Rüther N., Güntürkün O. The rubber hand illusion modulates pseudoneglect. Neuroscience Letters 2012, 523:158-161. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.06.068.
32. Ocklenburg S., Rüther N., Peterburs J., Pinnow M., Güntürkün O. Laterality in the rubber hand illusion. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body. Brain and Cognition 2011, 16:174-187. 10.1080/13576500903483515.
33. O'Sullivan, N., Braithwaite, J., Medford, N., Donnellan-Smith, W., Sharp, H., Bolda, R., et al. (2014). Variability in embodiment, and its relationship to depersonalization and voice hearing (submitted for publication).
34. Pavani F., Spence C., Driver J. Visual capture of touch: Out of the body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science 2000, 11:353-359. 10.1111/1467-9280.00270.
35. Pavani F., Zampini M. The role of hand size in the fake-hand illusion paradigm. Perception 2007, 36:1547-1554. 10.1068/p5853.
36. Petkova V.I., Ehrsson H.H. When right feels left: Referral of touch and ownership between the hands. PLoS ONE 2009, 4(9):1-8. 10.1371/ journal.pone.0006933.
37. Reinersmann A., Landwehrt J., Krumova E.K., Peterburs J., Ocklenburg S., Güntürkün O., et al. The rubber hand illusion in complex regional pain syndrome: Preserved ability to integrate a rubber hand indicates intact multisensory integration. Pain 2013, 154:1519-1527. 10.1016/j.pain.2013.03.039.
38. Rohde M., Di Luca M., Ernst M.O. The Rubber Hand Illusion: Feeling of Ownership and Proprioceptive Drift Do Not Go Hand in Hand. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(6):e21659. 10.1371/journal.pone.0021659.
39. Serino A., Haggard P. Touch and the body. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2010, 34(2):224-236. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.04.004.
40. Singh R., Hunter J., Philip A., Tyson S. Gender differences in amputation outcome. Disability and Rehabilitation 2008, 30(2):122-125. 10.1080/09638280701254095.
41. Suzuki, K., Garfinkel, S. N., Critchley, H. D., & Seth, A. K. (2013). Multisensory integration across exteroceptive and interoceptive domains modulates self-experience in the rubber-hand illusion. Neuropsychologica (in press). doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.08.014.
42. Tsakiris M., Carpenter L., James D., Fotopoulou A. Hands only illusion: Multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects. Experimental Brain Research 2010, 204(3):343-352. 10.1007/s00221-009-2039-3.
43. Tsakiris M., Costantini M., Haggard P. The role of the right temporoparietal junction in maintaining a coherent sense of one's body. Neuropsychologia 2008, 46(12):3014-3018. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.06.004.
44. Tsakiris M., Hesse M.D., Boy C., Haggard P., Fink G.R. Neural signatures of body ownership: A sensory network for bodily self-consciousness. Cerebral Cortex 2007, 17(10):2235-2244. 10.1093/cercor/bhl131.
45. Tsakiris M., Longo M.R., Haggard P. Having a body versus moving your body: Neural signatures of agency and body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:2740-2749. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.021.
46. Tsakiris M., Haggard P. The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 2005, 31:80-91. 10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80.
47. Uddin L.Q. Brain connectivity and the self: The case of cerebral disconnection. Consciousness and Cognition 2011, 20(1):94-98. 10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.009.