Cited by 150Face Recognition and PerceptionMultisensory perception and integrationVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

The person in the mirror: using the enfacement illusion to investigate the experiential structure of self-identification

Open access
Tajadura-Jiménez, Ana, Longo, Matthew R., Coleman, Rosie, Tsakiris, Manos·2012·Consciousness and Cognition

Abstract

How do we acquire a mental representation of our own face? Recently, synchronous, but not asynchronous, interpersonal multisensory stimulation (IMS) between one's own and another person's face has been used to evoke changes in self-identification (enfacement illusion). We investigated the conscious experience of these changes with principal component analyses (PCA) that revealed that while the conscious experience during synchronous IMS focused on resemblance and similarity with the other's face, during asynchronous IMS it focused on multisensory stimulation. Analyses of the identified common factor structure revealed significant quantitative differences between synchronous and asynchronous IMS on self-identification and perceived similarity with the other's face. Experiment 2 revealed that participants with lower interoceptive sensitivity experienced stronger enfacement illusion. Overall, self-identification and body-ownership rely on similar basic mechanisms of multisensory integration, but the effects of multisensory input on their experience are qualitatively different, possibly underlying the face's unique role as a marker of selfhood.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.concog.2012.10.004

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Participants with lower interoceptive sensitivity (IS) are more susceptible to the RHI and to the modulation of self-other boundaries in response to multisensory stimulation.

    “Tsakiris and colleagues reported that participants with lower IS are more susceptible to the RHI [55] and to the modulation of self-other boundaries in response to multisensory stimulation [56,57], possibly reflecting lower precision-weighting of interoceptive prediction errors.”

    From Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self (2013) · cites this paper as [56]

  • Synchronous, but not asynchronous, visuotactile stimulation elicits illusory feelings of ownership over the other's face.

    “As in the RHI, synchronous, but not asynchronous, visuotactile stimulation elicits illusory feelings of ownership over the other's face [53].”
  • Interoceptive awareness, measured by a heartbeat detection task, is negatively correlated with the intensity of the RHI.

    “Interestingly, a recent study has shown that interoceptive awareness, measured by a heartbeat detection task, is negatively correlated with the intensity of the RHI.”

    From Bodily ownership and self-location: Components of bodily self-consciousness (2013) · cites this paper as Tajadura-Jimenez et al., 2012

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tajadura-Jiménez, A., Longo, M. R., Coleman, R., & Tsakiris, M.
Affiliations
  • Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
Venue
Consciousness and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
1725-1738
ISSN
1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014518691
Cited by
150
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13
FWCI
4.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Consciousness and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G000719/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
enfacement illusion, self-identification, face perception, multisensory integration, body ownership, interoceptive sensitivity, selfhood, subjective experience
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Body Image, Face, Female, Humans, Illusions, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Self Concept, Sex Factors, Visual Perception, Touch Perception

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.

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