CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 171Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsMultisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory Interactions

Peripersonal space as the space of the bodily self

Open access
Noel, Jean-Paul, Pfeiffer, Christian, Blanke, Olaf, Serino, Andrea·2015·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.012PMC PMC4837893
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Bodily self-consciousness (BSC) refers to experience of one's self as located within an owned body (self-identification) and as occupying a specific location in space (self-location). BSC can be altered through multisensory stimulation, as in the Full Body Illusion (FBI). If participants view a virtual body from a distance being stroked, while receiving synchronous tactile stroking on their physical body, they feel as if the virtual body were their own and they experience, subjectively, to drift toward the virtual body. Here we hypothesized that--while normally the experience of the body in space depends on the integration of multisensory body-related signals within a limited space surrounding the body (i.e. peripersonal space, PPS)--during the FBI the boundaries of PPS would shift toward the virtual body, that is, toward the position of experienced self-location. To test this hypothesis, we used synchronous visuo-tactile stroking to induce the FBI, as contrasted with a control condition of asynchronous stroking. Concurrently, we applied an audio-tactile interaction paradigm to estimate the boundaries of PPS. PPS was measured in front of and behind the participants' body as the distance where tactile information interacted with auditory stimuli looming in space toward the participant's physical body. We found that during synchronous stroking, i.e. when participants experienced the FBI, PPS boundaries extended in the front-space, toward the avatar, and concurrently shrunk in the back-space, as compared to the asynchronous stroking control condition, when FBI was induced. These findings support the view that during the FBI, PPS boundaries translate toward the virtual body, such that the PPS representation shifts from being centered at the location of the physical body to being now centered at the subjectively experienced location of the self.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

During the Full Body Illusion (FBI), synchronous visuo-tactile stroking shifted peripersonal space (PPS) boundaries toward the virtual body: PPS expanded in front and contracted behind. This supports the view that PPS is centered on the experienced location of the self, not fixed to the physical body.

Key findings

  • Synchronous stroking induced the FBI: in Experiment 1, participants scored higher on Q1 (t(18)=3.45, p<0.01), Q2 (t(18)=13.54, p<0.001), and Q3 (t(18)=2.75, p<0.05); in Experiment 2, higher on Q2 (t(14)=2.88, p<0.01) and Q3 (t(14)=1.99, p<0.05).
  • Front-space PPS enlarged toward the avatar under synchronous stroking: the boundary moved from between D4 and D5 (60–75 cm) in the asynchronous condition to between D5 and D6 (75–90 cm) in the synchronous condition. At D5, RTs were faster in synchronous (M=343 ms, SEM=12 ms) than asynchronous (M=387 ms, SEM=16 ms; t(18)=-3.64, p<0.01).
  • Back-space PPS shrank under synchronous stroking: the boundary moved from between D5 and D6 (75–90 cm) in the asynchronous condition to between D4 and D5 (60–75 cm) in the synchronous condition. At D5, RTs were slower in synchronous (M=352 ms, SEM=15 ms) than asynchronous (M=310 ms, SEM=17 ms; t(14)=4.12, p<0.01).
  • A mixed-model ANOVA showed a significant three-way interaction of Synchrony × Sound Distance × Experiment (F(5,160)=6.97, p<0.001), consistent with opposite PPS shifts in front versus back space.

Methods

  • Two experiments: Experiment 1 had 19 participants (9 females, mean age 23.0 years, range 18–29); Experiment 2 had 15 participants (4 females, mean age 24.2 years, range 19–31). All were right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal eyesight, normal hearing, and no neurological/psychiatric history.
  • FBI induction: participants viewed a video of their own body from 200 cm behind via HMD while receiving tactile stroking on the upper back, either synchronously (<50 ms delay) or asynchronously (500 ms delay). FBI questionnaires were administered after each condition.
  • PPS measurement: an audio-tactile interaction task with looming sounds in front (Exp 1) or back (Exp 2) at six sound distances (15–90 cm), paired with vibro-tactile stimuli on chest or back; reaction times were analyzed with ANOVAs, including baseline and catch trials.

Limitations

  • The paper states it did not include a proper concurrent behavioral measure of changes in self-location, assessing only subjective changes via questionnaires.
  • The paper states the avatar was presented at 2 meters and PPS was mapped only up to 1 meter, so the study cannot identify a spatial limit for PPS extension or self-location shifts.
  • The paper acknowledges it cannot provide neurophysiological evidence for the proposed shift in multisensory receptive fields of PPS neurons.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.012

Cites

Statistics

25 tests recomputed · 1 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 38 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, participants scored higher on Question 3 (feeling they were drifting forward) during Synchronous than Asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation.

    “Question 3 (how strong was the feeling that you were drifting forward?; t(18) = 2.75, p < 0.05) during the Synchronous visuo-tactile condition than during the Asynchronous condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, there was a significant main effect of Synchrony on reaction times to vibro-tactile stimulation (F(1,18)=12.24, p<0.01, η2=0.40).

    “highlighted a significant main effect both for Synchrony (F(1, 18) = 12.24, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.40)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the mixed-model ANOVA, there was a significant three-way interaction (F(5,160)=6.97, p<0.001, η2=17).

    “findings did revealed a significant three way interaction (F(5, 160) = 6.97, p < 0.001, η2 = 17).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, participants scored higher on Question 3 during Synchronous than Asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation.

    “and critically, on Question 3 (how strong was the feeling that you were drifting forward?; t(14) = 1.99, p < 0.05) during the Synchronous visuo-tactile condition than during the Asynchronous condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, there was a significant Sound Distance × Synchrony interaction on mean RT (F(5,70)=5.97, p<0.001, η2=0.29).

    “as well as a Sound Distance X Synchrony interaction (F(5, 70) = 5.97, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.29).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 28
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Asynchronous condition of Experiment 1, reaction times at D1 through D4 were similar and significantly different from reaction times at D5 and D6.

    “results revealed that now only D1 through D4 exhibited similar reaction times, while these were significantly different from D5 and D6 (p < 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected, all Cohen's d > 0.24).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, in the Asynchronous condition, only reaction times at D1 through D4 were significantly faster than baseline, but reaction times at D5 and D6 were not.

    “For the Asynchronous condition, only RT at D1 through D4 were significantly faster from baseline (p < 0.05, Bonferroni corrected, all Cohen's d > 0.27), but not RT and D5 and D6 (both p-values > 0.41).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, 10 out of 15 participants showed numerically faster unimodal tactile RTs at T6 than T1.

    “(In Experiment 2, 10 out of 15 participants showed numerically faster unimodal tactile RTs at T6 than T1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The spatial location of the audio-tactile RT difference (D5) was the same in Experiment 2 as in Experiment 1, but the direction of the effect was reversed: in Experiment 1 at D5 participants were faster in the Synchronous condition, whereas in Experiment 2 they were faster in the Asynchronous condition.

    “Note that the location at which audio-tactile RT differed in space (namely, D5) was the same as in Experiment 1, however, the direction of the effect is inversed here. While in Experiment 1, at D5 participants were faster in the Synchronous condition, now they are faster in the Asynchronous condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Synchronous condition, RT at D1 through D4 were equivalent to each other and significantly faster than RT at D5 and D6 (p<0.05, Bonferroni-corrected, all Cohen's d > 0.19).

    “post-hoc comparisons showed that RT at D1 through D4 were equivalent to each other, and significantly faster than RT at D5 and D6 (p < 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected, all Cohen's d > 0.19).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, there was a similar trend for Question 1 (t(14)=1.37, p=0.04, one-tailed), which had shown a significant difference between Synchronous and Asynchronous stroking conditions in Experiment 1.

    “A similar trend was found for Question 1 (how strong was the feeling that the rod you saw was directly touching you?; t(14) = 1.37, p= 0.04, one-tailed), which exhibited a significant difference between Synchronous and Asynchronous stroking conditions in Experiment 1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Asynchronous condition, RT at D1 through D5 were similar and significantly different from D6 (p<0.05, Bonferroni-corrected, all Cohen's d > 0.25).

    “post-hoc comparisons revealed that D1 through D5 exhibited similar reaction times, while these were significantly different from D6 (p < 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected, all Cohen's d > 0.25).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, in the Synchronous condition, reaction times at D1 through D5 were significantly faster than baseline, but reaction times at D6 were not.

    “in the case of the Synchronous stroking stimulation, RT at D1 through D5 were significantly faster from baseline (p < 0.05, corrected, all Cohen's d > 0.34), but not RT at D6 (p=0.63).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the mixed-model ANOVA, there was a Sound Distance × Experiment interaction (F(5,160)=3.996, p=.007), with a steeper decrease in front-space than in back-space.

    “Findings did show a Sound Distance X Experiment interaction (F(5, 160) = 3.996, p = .007) – steeper decrease in the front-space than in the back-space”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Synchronous condition, RT at D1 through D4 were significantly faster than baseline, but RT at D5 and D6 were not.

    “Comparison to baseline demonstrated that in the case of the Synchronous stroking stimulation, RT at D1 through D4 were significantly faster from baseline (p < 0.05, corrected, all Cohen's d > 0.21), but not RT at D5 and D6.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation induced the Full-Body Illusion (FBI), with participants reporting a greater feeling of being directly touched by the stimulus touching the virtual body, of feeling touch at the location of the virtual body (Q1 and Q2), and of feeling to drift forward toward the virtual body (Q3).

    “When participants received a tactile stimulation on their physical body while viewing a synchronous stimulation administered to a virtual body seen at a distance, they reported a greater feeling of being directly touched by the stimulus touching the virtual body, of feeling touch at the location of the virtual body (Q1 and Q2), and of feeling to drift forward toward the virtual body (Q3)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Synchronous condition of Experiment 1, reaction times at D1 through D5 were equivalent to each other and significantly faster than reaction times at D6.

    “post-hoc comparisons (paired t-test) showed that RT at D1 through D5 were equivalent to each other, and significantly faster than RT at D6 (p < 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected – alpha set at 0.05/6 – number of comparisons, all Cohen's d > 0.32).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During the FBI, there was not only an extension of PPS in the direction of the avatar's location, but also a concurrent contraction of the back PPS.

    “Contrarily to the cases of rubber hand and tool-use, during the FBI, we did not find only an extension of PPS in the direction of the avatar's location, but also a concurrent contraction of the back PPS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These findings support the view that during the Full Body Illusion, peripersonal space boundaries translate toward the virtual body, such that the peripersonal space representation shifts from being centered at the location of the physical body to being centered at the subjectively experienced location of the self.

    “These findings support the view that during the FBI, PPS boundaries translate toward the virtual body, such that the PPS representation shifts from being centered at the location of the physical body to being now centered at the subjectively experienced location of the self.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The asynchronous visuo-tactile stroking condition did not induce the Full Body Illusion.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Experiment 1, the peripersonal space boundary under Asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation was placed between D4 and D5, whereas it enlarged to be placed between D5 and D6 under Synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation.

    “These results imply that the PPS boundary under Asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation was placed between D4 and D5, whereas it enlarged to be placed between D5 and D6, i.e. at a farther location of space, toward the virtual body, under Synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The asynchronous visuo-tactile stroking condition did not induce the Full Body Illusion.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Experiment 2, participants were generally very accurate at withholding response on auditory unimodal trials, and accuracy did not differ between Synchronous and Asynchronous stroking conditions.

    “participants were generally very accurate at withholding response when it was demanded from them (Synchronous condition: M = 96.4%, S.E.M = 1.5%; Asynchronous condition: M = 93.5%, S.E.M = 2.6%), and this did not differ between stroking conditions (t(14) < 1, ns).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Multisensory peripersonal space neurons integrate tactile, visual, and auditory stimuli when presented at a limited distance from the body, but not when further away; this limit defines the boundary of peripersonal space.

    “Multisensory PPS neurons integrate tactile, visual, and auditory stimuli when presented at a limited distance from the body (Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Gallese, 1997; Graziano & Cooke, 2006; Bremmer at al, 2002; Makin et al., 2007; Gentile et al., 2011), but not when further away. This limit defines the boundary of PPS”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Gallese, 1997 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Graziano & Cooke, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bremmer at al, 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Experiment 1, catch-trial accuracy did not differ between Synchronous and Asynchronous stroking conditions, and participants were very accurate at the task.

    “A Paired-Samples t-test ran on the catch trials showed Synchronous (M = 98.2%, S.E.M = 3%) and Asynchronous (M = 97.2%, S.E.M = 4%) stroking conditions did not differ (t(18) = .741, p > 0.05). Participants were very accurate at the task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Sample size for Experiment 1 was derived from power analysis of prior studies, and for Experiment 2 based on the effect size in Experiment 1.

    “Sample size for Experiment 1 was derived from power analysis of prior studies (Leggenhager et al., 2007, 2009) and for Experiment 2 based on the effect size in Experiment 1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Leggenhager et al., 2007, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study did not include a proper concurrent behavioral measure of changes in self-location to show a drift toward the avatar induced by the Full Body Illusion; thus only subjective changes in bodily self-consciousness were assessed by questionnaires.

    “We did not include in our design a proper concurrent behavioral measure of changes in self-location to show a drift toward the avatar induced by the FBI, as employed by other studies (e.g., Lenggenhager et al., 2007). Thus, we assessed only subjective changes in BSC by means of questionnaires.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lenggenhager et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Experiment 1, the limit of audio-tactile interaction, i.e. the peripersonal space boundary, was located between D4 and D5 in the Asynchronous stroking condition, and between D5 and D6 during the Synchronous condition.

    “These comparisons confirm that the limit of audio-tactile interaction, i.e. the PPS boundary, was located between D4 and D5 in the Asynchronous stroking condition, and between D5 and D6, i.e. further away from the physical body and closer to the avatar, during the Synchronous condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The asynchronous visuo-tactile stroking condition did not induce the Full Body Illusion.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The three-way interaction is explained by significant enlargement of PPS in front-space in the Synchronous condition as opposed to the Asynchronous condition, and by significant reduction of PPS in back-space in the Synchronous condition as opposed to the Asynchronous condition.

    “This results is explained by the significant enlargement of PPS in the front-space in the Synchronous condition as opposed to the Asynchronous condition (section 3.1.2), and to a significant reduction of PPS in the backspace in the Synchronous condition as opposed to the Asynchronous one (section 3.2.2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Normally the peripersonal space representation is bound to the physical body.

    “In particular, we test the hypothesis that, while normally the PPS representation is bound to the physical body, during the FBI PPS becomes referenced at the illusory perceived self-location.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The PPS boundary under Asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation was placed between D5 and D6, whereas under Synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation it shrank to be placed between D4 and D5.

    “These results imply that the PPS boundary under Asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation was placed between D5 and D6, whereas it shrank to be placed between D4 and D5, i.e. at a closer location of space, under Synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation.”
    • Also stated in: § 3. 2 Experiment 2 (back-space) · boosted
      “These comparisons confirm that the limits of audio-tactile interaction, i.e. the PPS boundary, was located between D5 and D6 in the Asynchronous stroking condition, and between D4 and D5 in the Synchronous one.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    A control experiment (sound localization, n=7) validated the paradigm, demonstrating that participants perceived the sounds as dynamically approaching their body.

    “A control experiment (i.e., sound localization, n = 7) validated the paradigm demonstrating that participants perceived the sounds as dynamically approaching their body (see further detail in Supplementary Material).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Aspell et al. (2009b) demonstrated that synchronous stroking inducing the FBI modulated multisensory interactions between visual and tactile stimuli in the crossmodal congruency effect using a spatial disparity of 2 meters, suggesting that multisensory effects, and thus PPS changes, induced by the FBI might extend well beyond the modulation shown in the present study within 1 meter.

    “Aspell et al., (2009b), demonstrated that synchronous stroking inducing the FBI modulated multisensory interactions between visual and tactile stimuli in the so-called crossmodal congruency effect (CCE) using a spatial disparity (between visual and tactile stimuli) of 2 meters (between virtual and physical body), thus suggesting that multisensory effects, and thus PPS changes, induced by the FBI”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aspell et al., (2009b)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The center of the PPS representation is not bound to the physical body, and not only arm-related PPS representations are malleable.

    “These findings confirm that the center of the PPS representation is not bound to the physical body and shows that not only arm-related PPS representations are malleable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Normally self-location and body location coincide, and so does PPS.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In monkeys, stimuli applied to a fake arm triggered responses from PPS neurons, suggesting that PPS receptive fields can incorporate a fake limb.

    “in monkeys, stimuli applied to a fake arm triggered responses from PPS neurons, suggesting that PPS receptive fields can incorporate a fake limb (Graziano, Cooke, & Taylor, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Graziano, Cooke, & Taylor, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    PPS shapes not only during physical body-objects interactions, such as those mediated by tool-use, but also during virtual interactions with far objects, mediated by a computer mouse or surgical robots, and even after social interactions with other persons, depending on the positive or negative value of those interactions.

    “Our data also corroborate recent reports showing that PPS shapes not only during physical body-objects interactions, such as those mediated by tool-use, but also during virtual interactions with far objects, mediated by a computer mouse (Bassolino et al., 2010) or surgical robots (Rognini et al., 2013; Sengül et al., 2012), and even after social interactions with other persons, depending on the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bassolino et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rognini et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Teneggi et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The present findings suggest that PPS can be considered as a representation of the self in space, which may mediate interactions between the individual and the environment.

    “More generally, the present findings suggest that PPS can be considered as a representation of the self in space, which may mediate interactions between the individual and the environment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
30 of 30

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The asynchronous visuo-tactile stroking condition did not induce the Full Body Illusion.

    “as compared to the asynchronous stroking control condition, where no FBI was induced.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Normally self-location and body location coincide, and so does PPS.

    “Normally self-location and body location coincide, and so does PPS.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The questionnaire responses (especially Q3) validly indicate the subjectively experienced location of the self.

    “see Question 3”
3 of 3

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?

  • The full-body illusion, induced with virtual reality, shifted the self-PPS boundary towards VR avatars.

    “The full-body illusion, induced with virtual reality, indeed shifted the self-PPS boundary towards VR avatars (Ehrsson, 2007;Lenggenhager, Tadi, Metzinger, & Blanke, 2007;Noel, Pfeiffer, et al., 2015).”

    From The Peripersonal Space in a social world (2021) · cites this paper as Noel, Pfeiffer, et al., 2015

  • Bodily self-consciousness impacts several perceptual and cognitive functions such as tactile perception, pain perception, visual perception, and egocentric cognitive processes.

    “Recent findings have shown that BSC impacts several perceptual and cognitive functions such as tactile perception [48,49], pain perception [50,51], visual perception [52–54], as well as egocentric cognitive processes [55].”

    From First-person view of one’s body in immersive virtual reality: Influence on episodic memory (2019) · cites this paper as [49]

  • In experiment 3, there was no memory improvement in the object condition, arguing against a visual or attentional account and corroborating that the recognition enhancement is due to multisensory-motor bodily stimulation.

    “Data from this experiment revealed no memory improvement in the object condition, arguing against a visual or attentional account and further corroborating our proposal that the present recognition enhancement is due to multisensory-motor bodily stimulation that has been shown to be crucial for BSC [36,42,49,133] and characteristic of normal everyday experience.”

    From First-person view of one’s body in immersive virtual reality: Influence on episodic memory (2019) · cites this paper as [49]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value across alpha = .05: t(14) = 1.37, p = .04

    Major

    The paper reports p = .04 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .192 (two-tailed). The two fall on opposite sides of alpha = .05. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .192

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 32) = 3.609, p = .076

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .076 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .067. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .076 · recomputed p = .067

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 32) = 2.198, p = .092

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .092 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .148. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .092 · recomputed p = .148

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(5, 160) = 3.996, p = .007

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .007 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .002. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .002

4 of 4

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.

  • Doesn’t add upt(14) = 1.37reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .192The two fall on opposite sides of .05

    “t(14) = 1.37, p = .04”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 32) = 3.609reported p = .076 · recomputed p = .067

    “F(1, 32) = 3.609, p = .076”

  • Doesn’t add upF(5, 160) = 3.996reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(5, 160) = 3.996, p = .007”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 32) = 2.198reported p = .092 · recomputed p = .148

    “F(1, 32) = 2.198, p = .092”

  • Consistentt(18) = 3.45reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .003

    “t(18) = 3.45, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(18) = 13.54reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(18) = 13.54, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(18) = 2.75reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .013

    “t(18) = 2.75, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(18) = 0.741reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .468

    “t(18) = .741, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 18) = 12.24reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(1, 18) = 12.24, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(5, 90) = 22.88reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 90) = 22.88, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 90) = 2.51reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .036

    “F(5, 90) = 2.51, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(5, 90) = 21.65reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 90) = 21.65, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 90) = 12.68reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 90) = 12.68, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(18) = -3.64reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(18) = -3.64, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(14) = 2.88reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .012

    “t(14) = 2.88, p < .01”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(14) = 1.99reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .066

    “t(14) = 1.99, p < .05”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(14) < 1reported n.s. · recomputed p = .334

    “t(14) < 1, ns”

  • ConsistentF(5, 70) = 12.54reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5,70) = 12.54, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 70) = 5.97reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 70) = 5.97, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 70) = 9.57reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 70) = 9.57, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 70) = 11.82reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 70) = 11.82, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(14) = 4.12reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .001

    “t(14) = 4.12, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(5, 160) = 30.173reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 160) = 30.173, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 0.095reported p = .76 · recomputed p = .760

    “F(1, 32) = 0.095, p = .760”

  • ConsistentF(5, 160) = 6.97reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 160) = 6.97, p < .001”

25 of 25

Self-check

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

  • Sound travel distance does not equal the stated 15 cm

    Minor

    At 75 cm/sec, a sound travels 14.25 cm in 0.190 seconds, not the stated 15 cm. The parenthetical multiplication therefore does not give the value printed.

    Reported 15 · recomputed 14.25

1 of 1

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 171

Authors
Noel, J.-P., Pfeiffer, C., Blanke, O., & Serino, A.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Serino, Andrea
ORCID
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
144
Pages
49-57
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.012
PMC
PMC4837893
OpenAlex
W1821978739
Cited by
171
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
FWCI
26.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Volkswagen Stiftung
  • University of Bologna
  • Swiss National Science Foundation
  • European Science Foundation
  • Bertarelli Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
peripersonal space, bodily self-consciousness, full-body illusion, self-localization, multisensory integration, virtual body, body ownership, self-identification
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Hearing, Humans, Illusions, Male, Personal Space, Physical Stimulation, Self Concept, Touch, Young Adult

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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