The correlation between proprioceptive drift and subjective embodiment during the rubber hand illusion: A meta-analytic approach

Abstract

In the rubber hand illusion (RHI), participants see a fake hand touched synchronously with their real hand, which is hidden from view. The three-way interaction between vision, touch, and proprioception induces the sensation that the dummy hand belongs to oneself (i.e., subjective embodiment) and the illusory displacement of the real hand towards the fake one (i.e., proprioceptive drift). In the literature, there are mixed results (some positive and some null) regarding the existence of a relationship between subjective embodiment and proprioceptive drift. We conducted a Bayesian meta-analysis to tackle this issue quantitatively. Evidence strongly favours the presence of a correlation between subjective embodiment and proprioceptive drift, supporting the model proposed by Botvinick and Cohen in 1998. However, the correlation is around .35, a value suggesting that the two indices capture different facets of the RHI. This result clarifies the association between the illusory effects produced by the RHI and may be helpful for designing studies having appropriate statistical power.

Keywords

Metanalysis rubber hand illusion proprioceptive drift embodiment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdulkarim

Ehrsson

H. H.

(2016). No causal link between changes in hand position sense and feeling of limb ownership in the rubber hand illusion. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(2), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-1016-0

Abdulkarim

Hayatou

Ehrsson

H. H.

(2021). Sustained rubber hand illusion after the end of visuotactile stimulation with a similar time course for the reduction of subjective ownership and proprioceptive drift. Experimental Brain Research, 239(12), 3471–3486. https://doi.org/10.1007/S700221-021-06211-8

Andraszewicz

Scheibehenne

Rieskamp

Grasman

Verhagen

Wagenmakers

E. J.

(2015). An introduction to Bayesian hypothesis testing for management research. Journal of Management, 41(2), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314560412

Asai

Mao

Sugimori

Tanno

(2011). Rubber hand illusion, empathy, and schizotypal experiences in terms of self-other representations. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1744–1750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.005

Benesty

Chen

Huang

Cohen

(2009). Pearson correlation coefficient. Springer Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00296-0_5/COVER/

Botvinick

Cohen

(1998). Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see. Nature, 391(6669), 756. https://doi.org/10.1038/35784

David

Fiori

Aglioti

S. M.

(2014). Susceptibility to the rubber hand illusion does not tell the whole body-awareness story. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(1), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0190-6

Dempsey-Jones

Kritikos

(2014). Higher-order cognitive factors affect subjective but not proprioceptive aspects of self-representation in the rubber hand illusion. Consciousness and Cognition, 26(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.005

Driver

Mattingley

J. B.

Rorden

Davis

(1997). Extinction as a paradigm measure of attentional bias and restricted capacity following brain injury. In Thier

Karnath

H.-O.

(Eds.), Parietal lobe contributions to orientation in 3D space (pp. 401–429). Springer.

10.

Ehrsson

H. H.

(2020). Multisensory processes in body ownership. Multisensory Perception: From Laboratory to Clinic, 2020, 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812492-5.00008-5

11.

Ehrsson

H. H.

Chancel

(2019). Premotor cortex implements causal inference in multisensory own-body perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(40), 1914000116. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914000116

12.

Ehrsson

H. H.

Fotopoulou

Radziun

Longo

M. R.

Tsakiris

(2022). No specific relationship between hypnotic suggestibility and the rubber hand illusion. In. Nature Communications, 13(1), 564. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28177-z

13.

Erro

Marotta

Tinazzi

Frera

Fiorio

(2018). Judging the position of the artificial hand induces a “visual” drift towards the real one during the rubber hand illusion. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20551-6

14.

Eshkevari

Rieger

Longo

M. R.

Haggard

Treasure

(2012). Increased plasticity of the bodily self in eating disorders. Psychological Medicine, 42(4), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002091

15.

Fang

Sigman

Wang

(2019). Statistical inference of body representation in the macaque brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(40), 20151–20157. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.1902334116/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.1902334116.SAPP.PDF

16.

Fuchs

Riemer

Diers

Flor

Trojan

(2016). Perceptual drifts of real and artificial limbs in the rubber hand illusion. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24362

17.

Georgiou

Mai

Pollatos

(2016). Describe your feelings: Body illusion related to alexithymia in adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1690. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01690

18.

Gronau

Q. F.

Heck

D. W.

Berkhout

S. W.

Haaf

J. M.

Wagenmakers

E. J.

(2021). A primer on Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4, 25152459211031256. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211031256

19.

Haans

Kaiser

F. G.

Bouwhuis

D. G.

IJsselsteijn

W. A.

(2012). Individual differences in the rubber-hand illusion: Predicting self-reports of people’s personal experiences. Acta Psychologica, 141(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.016

20.

Heck

D. W.

Gronau

Q. F.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(2017). MetaBMA: Bayesian model averaging for random and fixed effects meta-analysis (version 0.3.9). CRAN. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metaBMA/metaBMA.pdf

21.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Thompson

S. G.

Spiegelhalter

D. J.

(2009). A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society, 172(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x

22.

Holle

McLatchie

Maurer

Ward

(2011). Proprioceptive drift without illusions of ownership for rotated hands in the “rubber hand illusion” paradigm, Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(3–4), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2011.603828

23.

Holmes

N. P.

Snijders

H. J.

Spence

(2006). Reaching with alien limbs: Visual exposure to prosthetic hands in a mirror biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(4), 685–701.

24.

JASP Team. (2021). JASP (Version 0.15) [Computer software]. In JASP—Free and user-friendly statistical software.

25.

Jeffreys

(1983). Theory of probability, 459. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-theory-of-probability-9780198503682?cc=in&lang=en &

26.

Kalckert

Ehrsson

H. H.

(2012). Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: A dissociation of ownership and agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040

27.

Kalckert

Ehrsson

H. H.

(2014). The moving rubber hand illusion revisited: Comparing movements and visuotactile stimulation to induce illusory ownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 26, 117–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.003

28.

Kilteni

Maselli

Kording

K. P.

Slater

(2015). Over my fake body: Body ownership illusions for studying the multisensory basis of own-body perception. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(March), 141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00141

29.

Körding

K. P.

Beierholm

W. J.

Quartz

Tenenbaum

J. B.

Shams

(2007). Causal inference in multisensory perception. PLOS ONE, 2(9), e943. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0000943

30.

Lenggenhager

Pazzaglia

Scivoletto

Molinari

Aglioti

S. M.

(2012). The sense of the body in individuals with spinal cord injury. PLOS ONE, 7(11), e50757. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050757

31.

Lira

Egito

J. H.

Dall’Agnol

P. A.

Amodio

D. M.

Gonçalves

Ó. F.

Boggio

P. S.

(2017). The influence of skin colour on the experience of ownership in the rubber hand illusion. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16137-3

32.

Lush

Botan

Scott

R. B.

Seth

A. K.

Ward

Dienes

(2020). Trait phenomenological control predicts experience of mirror synaesthesia and the rubber hand illusion. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18591-6

33.

Lush

Seth

A. K.

(2022). Reply to: No specific relationship between hypnotic suggestibility and the rubber hand illusion. Nature Communications 13, 563. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28178-y

34.

Makin

T. R.

Holmes

N. P.

Ehrsson

H. H.

(2008). On the other hand: Dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behavioural Brain Research, 191(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.02.041

35.

Marotta

Tinazzi

Cavedini

Zampini

Fiorio

(2016). Individual differences in the rubber hand illusion are related to sensory suggestibility. PLOS ONE, 11(12), e168489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168489

36.

Newport

Pearce

Preston

(2010). Fake hands in action: Embodiment and control of supernumerary limbs. Experimental Brain Research, 204(3), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00221-009-2104-Y/FIGURES/4

37.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

38.

Perugini

Gallucci

Costantini

(2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 1745691614528519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528519

39.

Radziun

Ehrsson

H. H.

(2018). Short-term visual deprivation boosts the flexibility of body representation. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24496-8

40.

Ratner

(2009). The correlation coefficient: Its values range between +1/−1, or do they? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 17, 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5

41.

R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.3.3). R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

42.

Rohde

Luca

Ernst

M. O.

(2011). The rubber hand illusion: Feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift Do not go hand in hand. PLOS ONE, 6, e21659. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021659

43.

Romano

Maravita

Perugini

(2021). Psychometric properties of the embodiment scale for the rubber hand illusion and its relation with individual differences. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84595-x

44.

Röver

(2020). Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the Bayesmeta R package. Journal of Statistical Software, 93(6). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v093.i06

45.

Samad

Chung

A. J.

Shams

(2015). Perception of body ownership is driven by Bayesian sensory inference. PLOS ONE, 10(2), e117178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117178

46.

Siedlecka

Klimza

Łukowska

Wierzchoń

(2014). Rubber hand illusion reduces discomfort caused by cold stimulus. PLOS ONE, 9(10), e109909. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109909

47.

Siedlecka

Spychała

Łukowska

Wiercioch

Wierzchoń

(2018). Rubber hand illusion increases pain caused by electric stimuli. The Journal of Pain, 19(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2017.08.005

48.

Smit

Brummelman

J. T. H.

Keizer

van der Smagt

M. J.

Dijkerman

H. C.

van der Ham

I. J. M.

(2018). Body ownership and the absence of touch: Approaching the rubber hand inside and outside peri-hand space. Experimental Brain Research, 236(12), 3251–3265.

49.

Tosi

Romano

(2021). The network of the subjective experience in embodiment phenomena. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1166429/v1/ed113424-83c2-4921-a659-069299984cac.pdf?c=1640191107

50.

Tsakiris

(2010). My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.034

51.

Tsakiris

Haggard

(2005). The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80

52.

Walsh

Guilmette

D. N.

Longo

M. R.

Moore

J. W.

Oakley

D. A.

Halligan

P. W.

Mehta

M. A.

Deeley

(2015). Are you suggesting that’s my hand? The relation between hypnotic suggestibility and the rubber hand illusion. Perception, 44(6), 709–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006615594266

53.

Zopf

Truong

Finkbeiner

Friedman

Williams

M. A.

(2011). Viewing and feeling touch modulates hand position for reaching. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1287–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2011.02.012