Perceptual illusions of having extra body parts offer an experimental method to investigate the limits of body perception. It is well established that the illusory perception of an artificial hand as one’s own is dependent on spatial congruency. That is, the seen hand needs to be in a posture congruent with the actual hand. In this study, we aimed to investigate how constrained the representation of a supernumerary body part is by systematically varying the perceived rotation of an illusory sixth finger. Surprisingly, participants felt a sixth finger on their hand consistently for all induced orientations of finger extension and abduction (0°, 90°, 135°, 180°). The illusion showed no apparent decrease with increased induced rotation of the extra finger. We also measured the perceived orientation of the sixth finger, and our results show that participants felt an extended and an abducted sixth finger increasingly more rotated as the induced rotation also increased, while feeling their actual little finger in a normal position. Our results indicate that one can feel a supernumerary finger in an incongruent spatial location from one’s actual fingers and hand, to an extent of 180° of extension (finger up) and 180° of abduction (finger to the side). We therefore propose that the representation of the supernumerary finger has a strong independence from the actual finger and hand-frame reference.
AmbronE.MedinaJ. (2023). Examining constraints on embodiment using the Anne Boleyn illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 49(6), 877–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001125
2.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
CadeteD.AlsmithA. J. T.LongoM. R. (2022). Curved sixth fingers: Flexible representation of the shape of supernumerary body parts. Consciousness and Cognition, 105, 103413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2022.103413
CadeteD.LongoM. R. (2022). The long sixth finger illusion: The representation of the supernumerary finger is not a copy and can be felt with varying lengths. Cognition, 218, 104948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104948
8.
CadeteD.LongoM. R. (2023). Matches, mismatches, and the experience of supernumerary body parts. Physics of Life Reviews, 44, 81–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2022.12.009
9.
CostantiniM.GalatiG.FerrettiA.CauloM.TartaroA.RomaniG. L.AgliotiS. M. (2005). Neural systems underlying observation of humanly impossible movements: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 15(11), 1761–1767. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi053
10.
CostantiniM.HaggardP. (2007). The rubber hand illusion: Sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.001
11.
EhrssonH. H. (2004). That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science, 305(5685), 875–877. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097011
12.
EhrssonH. H. (2009). How many arms make a pair? Perceptual illusion of having an additional limb. Perception, 38(2), 310–312. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6304
13.
ErdoganK.BakirciS. (2023). Evaluation of the abduction angles between hand fingers. Medicine Science | International Medical Journal, 12(1), 211. https://doi.org/10.5455/medscience.2022.12.267
14.
Espírito SantoM. G.ChenH.-Y.SchürmannM. (2017). Lateralized occipito-temporal N1 responses to images of salient distorted finger postures. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14129. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14474-x
15.
FanC.CoppiS.EhrssonH. H. (2021). The supernumerary rubber hand illusion revisited: Perceived duplication of limbs and visuotactile events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(6), 810–829. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000904
16.
FarnèA.PavaniF.MeneghelloF.LàdavasE. (2000). Left tactile extinction following visual stimulation of a rubber hand. Brain, 123(11), 2350–2360. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.11.2350
17.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
18.
GallagherM.KearneyB.FerrèE. R. (2021). Where is my hand in space? The internal model of gravity influences proprioception. Biology Letters, 17(6), 20210115. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0115
19.
GuterstamA.AbdulkarimZ.EhrssonH. H. (2015). Illusory ownership of an invisible body reduces autonomic and subjective social anxiety responses. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09831
20.
GuterstamA.GentileG.EhrssonH. H. (2013). The invisible hand illusion: Multisensory integration leads to the embodiment of a discrete volume of empty space. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(7), 1078–1099. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00393
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
24.
LloydD.MorrisonI.RobertsN. (2006). Role for human posterior parietal cortex in visual processing of aversive objects in peripersonal space. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95(1), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00614.2005
MakinT. R.HolmesN. P.EhrssonH. 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
27.
Mohamed IbrahimB.KBabaP. U. F.SinghV.KaranjkarA.MadhavanL.ShahR. A.HaqA.PawarM.KumariA.PanseN. G. V.PandianS. K.SharmaA.KrishnamoorthyR.ThatteM.BhatA.KrishnamoorthyS. (2024). The normal active range of motion of the index, middle, ring, and little fingers in a sample of Indian population. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 57(4), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1788593
28.
NewportR.PearceR.PrestonC. (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
29.
NewportR.WongD. Y.HowardE. M.SilverE. (2016). The Anne Boleyn illusion is a six-fingered salute to sensory remapping. I-Perception, 7(5), 2041669516669732. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516669732
PavaniF.SpenceC.DriverJ. (2000). Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science, 11(5), 353–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00270
32.
RamachandranV. S.Rogers-RamachandranD. (1996). Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 263(1369), 377–386.
33.
RatcliffeN.NewportR. (2017). The effect of visual, spatial and temporal manipulations on embodiment and action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00227
34.
SchürmannM.HlushchukY.HariR. (2011). Embodied visual perception of distorted finger postures. Human Brain Mapping, 32(4), 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21049
35.
TsakirisM.HaggardP. (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
36.
TubianaR. (1988). Movements of the fingers (Second of a series of three articles). Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 3(4), 123–128.
37.
TubianaR.ChamagneP. (1988). Functional anatomy of the hand (First of a series of three articles). Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 3(3), 83–87.
38.
WobbrockJ. O.FindlaterL.GergleD.HigginsJ. J. (2011). The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 143–146). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963
