Cited by 956Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFree Will and AgencyTactile and Sensory Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 11 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

What is embodiment? A psychometric approach

Open access

Abstract

What is it like to have a body? The present study takes a psychometric approach to this question. We collected structured introspective reports of the rubber hand illusion, to systematically investigate the structure of bodily self-consciousness. Participants observed a rubber hand that was stroked either synchronously or asynchronously with their own hand and then made proprioceptive judgments of the location of their own hand and used Likert scales to rate their agreement or disagreement with 27 statements relating to their subjective experience of the illusion. Principal components analysis of this data revealed four major components of the experience across conditions, which we interpret as: embodiment of rubber hand, loss of own hand, movement, and affect. In the asynchronous condition, an additional fifth component, deafference, was found. Secondary analysis of the embodiment of runner hand component revealed three subcomponents in both conditions: ownership, location, and agency. The ownership and location components were independent significant predictors of proprioceptive biases induced by the illusion. These results suggest that psychometric tools may provide a rich method for studying the structure of conscious experience, and point the way towards an empirically rigorous phenomenology.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study applies psychometric methods (principal components analysis) to structured introspective reports of the rubber hand illusion to decompose the experience of embodiment. It identifies four components present in both synchronous and asynchronous conditions, with an additional deafference component in the asynchronous condition, and shows that ownership and location subcomponents independently predict proprioceptive drift.

Key findings

In the synchronous condition, PCA extracted four components accounting for 55.3% of variance: embodiment of rubber hand (26.3% of variance), loss of own hand, movement, and affect. In the asynchronous condition, five components emerged accounting for 59.4% of variance, with the same four plus a new deafference component (embodiment accounted for 24.6%). Secondary PCA on the ten embodiment items revealed three subcomponents in both conditions — ownership, location, and agency — accounting for 79.0% (synchronous) and 76.2% (asynchronous) of variance, with ownership comprising 35.4% and 34.3% respectively. Proprioceptive displacement toward the rubber hand was significant after synchronous stroking (1.34 cm, t(119) = 4.56, p < .0001) but not asynchronous (0.30 cm, n.s.), and was predicted by the embodiment component (β = 0.609, p < .001), specifically by the location (β = .485, p < .005) and ownership (β = .425, p < .01) subcomponents but not agency (β = .110, n.s.).

Methods

131 current and prospective UCL students (75 female; all but six right-handed) participated. Participants viewed a rubber hand stroked either synchronously or asynchronously (180° out of phase, ~1 Hz) with their own hand for 60 seconds, made pre- and post-test proprioceptive location judgments, and rated agreement with 27 statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Separate PCAs with varimax rotation were run per condition, followed by secondary PCAs on the embodiment items, ANOVAs on component scores, and multiple linear regression relating component scores to proprioceptive displacement.

Limitations

The paper states that the selection of questionnaire items restricts the potential structure that can emerge, and that additional components of embodiment may not have been covered; it also notes that the structure found may not generalise to other uses of the term "embodiment" (e.g., emphases on affect, sublinguistic thought, or social interaction). Evident from the text: proprioceptive judgments from 11 participants were missing or unusable, and the questionnaire items were designed based on qualitative research with only five participants.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.004

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 11 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 58 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 34
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
49 of 49
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The same visual and tactile stimulation delivered asynchronously has a quite different phenomenology.

    “The same visual and tactile stimulation delivered asynchronously has a quite different phenomenology.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most studies simply report the occurrence of the illusion, or a behavioural or neural proxy of it such as a change in the perceived position of the participant's own hand, without systematic description or quantitative measurement of the changed sense of embodiment.

    “However, most studies simply report the occurrence of the illusion, or a behavioural or neural proxy of it such as a change in the perceived position of the participant's own hand, without systematic description or quantitative measurement of the changed sense of embodiment.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Recognition of the importance of embodiment has not been matched by theoretical clarity about what embodiment is or involves.

    “However, recognition of the importance of embodiment has not been matched by theoretical clarity about what embodiment is or involves.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The phenomenological tradition has not offered the operational working definitions and measures needed for rigorous empirical research.

    “However, it has not offered the operational working definitions and measures needed for rigorous empirical research.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The present findings represent the first systematic attempt to measure embodiment.

    “To our knowledge, the present findings represent the first systematic attempt to measure embodiment.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rubber hand illusion is an experimental model of embodiment.

    “While the rubber hand illusion is well accepted as an experimental model of embodiment, there has been less consensus on how to measure the illusion.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rubber hand illusion can be elicited under systematically controlled experimental conditions.

    “Second, we have focussed on the rubber hand illusion as an initial model for embodiment, because it is subjectively compelling for many people, and can elicited under systematically controlled experimental conditions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rubber hand illusion is subjectively compelling for many people.

    “Second, we have focussed on the rubber hand illusion as an initial model for embodiment, because it is subjectively compelling for many people, and can elicited under systematically controlled experimental conditions.”
8 of 8

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(3, 390) = 107.41reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3, 390) = 107.41,p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 130) = 29.05reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 130) = 29.05,p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(3, 390) = 69.24reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3, 390) = 69.24,p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 260) = 11.26reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 260) = 11.26,p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 130) = 110.69reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 130) = 110.69,p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 260) = 3.6reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .029

    “F(2, 260) = 3.60, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 127) = 4.06reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .046

    “F(1, 127) = 4.06, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(119) = 2.43reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .017

    “t(119) = 2.43, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(119) = 4.56reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(119) = 4.56, p < .0001”

  • Consistentt(119) = 1.2reported n.s. · recomputed p = .233

    “t(119) = 1.20, n.s.”

  • Consistentt(119) = 3.22reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(119) = 3.22, p < .005”

  • Consistentt(115) = 3.4reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(115) = 3.40, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(115) = 1.68reported p = .096 · recomputed p = .096

    “t(115) = 1.68, p = .096”

  • Consistentt(118) = -0.53reported p > .2 · recomputed p = .597

    “t(118) = -.53,p > .20”

  • Consistentt(116) = 3.02reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .003

    “t(116) = 3.02, p < .005”

  • Consistentt(116) = 2.85reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .005

    “t(116) = 2.85, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(116) = 0.75reported p > .2 · recomputed p = .455

    “t(116) = .75,p > .20”

17 of 17

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 75 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 953

Metadata

Authors
Longo, M. R., Schüür, F., Kammers, M. P. M., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Longo, Matthew R.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-06
Volume
107
Issue
3
Pages
978-998
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017142040
Cited by
956
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 102 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 21
FWCI
60.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Royal Holloway Digital Repository (Royal Holloway University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Fundação Bial
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/D009529/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
embodiment, rubber hand illusion, bodily self-consciousness, proprioception, body ownership, body location, bodily agency, introspective reports, subjective experience, phenomenology, psychometric structure
MeSH terms
Humans, Perception, Proprioception, Psychometrics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review