Spatial limits on the nonvisual self-touch illusion and the visual rubber hand illusion: Subjective experience of the illusion and proprioceptive drift

Anne M. Aimola Davies*, Rebekah C. White, Martin Davies

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    23 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The nonvisual self-touch rubber hand paradigm elicits the compelling illusion that one is touching one's own hand even though the two hands are not in contact. In four experiments, we investigated spatial limits of distance (15. cm, 30. cm, 45. cm, 60. cm) and alignment (0°, 90° anti-clockwise) on the nonvisual self-touch illusion and the well-known visual rubber hand illusion. Common procedures (synchronous and asynchronous stimulation administered for 60. s with the prosthetic hand at body midline) and common assessment methods were used. Subjective experience of the illusion was assessed by agreement ratings for statements on a questionnaire and time of illusion onset. The nonvisual self-touch illusion was diminished though never abolished by distance and alignment manipulations, whereas the visual rubber hand illusion was more robust against these manipulations. We assessed proprioceptive drift, and implications of a double dissociation between subjective experience of the illusion and proprioceptive drift are discussed.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)613-636
    Number of pages24
    JournalConsciousness and cognition
    Volume22
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Keywords

    • Action
    • Alignment
    • Body
    • Distance
    • Location of illusion
    • Proprioception
    • Proprioceptive drift
    • Rubber hand illusion
    • Self-touch illusion
    • Sensory integration

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Spatial limits on the nonvisual self-touch illusion and the visual rubber hand illusion: Subjective experience of the illusion and proprioceptive drift'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this