CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 390Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsTactile and Sensory InteractionsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response.

Open access
Ehrsson, H. Henrik, Wiech, Katja, Weiskopf, Nikolaus, Dolan, Raymond J., Passingham, Richard E.·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0610011104PMC PMC1887585
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The feeling of body ownership is a fundamental aspect of self-consciousness. The underlying neural mechanisms can be studied by using the illusion where a person is made to feel that a rubber hand is his or her own hand by brushing the person's hidden real hand and synchronously brushing the artificial hand that is in full view. Here we show that threat to the rubber hand can induce a similar level of activity in the brain areas associated with anxiety and interoceptive awareness (insula and anterior cingulate cortex) as when the person's real hand is threatened. We further show that the stronger the feeling of ownership of the artificial hand, the stronger the threat-evoked neuronal responses in the areas reflecting anxiety. Furthermore, across subjects, activity in multisensory areas reflecting ownership predicted the activity in the interoceptive system when the hand was under threat. Finally, we show that there is activity in medial wall motor areas, reflecting an urge to withdraw the artificial hand when it is under threat. These findings suggest that artificial limbs can evoke the same feelings as real limbs and provide objective neurophysiological evidence that the rubber hand is fully incorporated into the body. These findings are of fundamental importance because they suggest that the feeling of body ownership is associated with changes in the interoceptive systems.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Threatening a rubber hand that participants felt was their own evoked fMRI activity in anxiety/interoceptive areas similar to threatening their real hand. The strength of the rubber-hand ownership illusion predicted threat-evoked activity in insula and anterior cingulate cortex.

Key findings

  • Subjective ownership was stronger during synchronous than asynchronous brushing (P < 0.001), and anxiety when the rubber hand was threatened was greater during ownership than no-ownership (P < 0.001); anxiety during rubber-hand ownership threat was similar to real-hand threat (P > 0.05).
  • Threat during ownership vs no-ownership produced a significant peak at the pre-SMA/SMA border (x = −4, y = 2, z = 74; t = 5.13; P < 0.05 corrected), with additional SMA/pre-SMA peaks not surviving correction.
  • Across subjects, stronger ownership vividness correlated with greater threat-evoked BOLD responses in left anterior insula (t = 3.63, R² = 0.44), right anterior insula (t = 3.78, R² = 0.46), and bilateral ACC (t = 5.65, R² = 0.65; t = 4.48, R² = 0.54), all P < 0.05 corrected.
  • Activity in bilateral anterior insula, ACC, and pre-SMA was similar when the real hand was threatened and when the rubber hand was threatened during ownership (P > 0.05 uncorrected).

Methods

  • Nineteen right-handed healthy participants (11 males; aged 19–33) were scanned; participation was limited to those who felt the rubber-hand illusion in preliminary testing, and 9 other subjects were not scanned because they did not experience the illusion.
  • Participants viewed a rubber right hand while their real right hand was hidden; synchronous brushing of both hands induced ownership, asynchronous brushing served as no-ownership control, and a needle made brisk stabbing movements toward the rubber hand without touching it. Separate runs threatened the real hand.
  • fMRI data were acquired on a 1.5-T scanner and analyzed with SPM2 using random-effects group analyses, with small-volume correction in a priori pain/anxiety regions.

Limitations

  • The paper states substantial intersubject variability in the strength of the rubber-hand illusion and in needle-evoked anxiety, which likely explains why the simple subtraction showed only trends for insula and ACC and why some SMA/pre-SMA peaks did not survive correction.
  • The paper notes that some ACC/insula activity just reflected seeing the needle, and that the key anxiety-related effects were over and above this basic activity.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was small (19 scanned), anxiety and ownership were subjective ratings, the needle did not touch the hand, and the design cannot establish whether interoceptive engagement is a cause or consequence of ownership.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0610011104

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 49 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Threat-related BOLD response in pre-SMA/SMA is greater when participants experience the illusion than when they do not.

    “In both the SMA and pre-SMA, the threat-related response was greater when the participants experienced the illusion than when they did not (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
  • Findingown data
    § Discussion

    The simple subtraction between threat responses in the synchronous and asynchronous conditions only revealed statistical trends for activation in insula and ACC.

    “The simple “subtraction” between the threat responses in the synchronous and asynchronous conditions only revealed statistical trends for activation in insula and ACC (see the BOLD plots in SI Fig. 8; P < 0.01, uncorrected).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Participants rated greater anxiety when the rubber hand was threatened during the ownership condition than during the no-ownership condition.

    “They also rated greater anxiety when the rubber hand was threatened during the ownership condition, as compared with no-ownership condition (P < 0.001, paired two-tailed t test; SI Fig. 4b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
    • Rests on an assumption: The subjective ratings of ownership and anxiety are valid measures of the corresponding subjective experiences.
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Across subjects, activity in multisensory areas reflecting ownership predicted activity in the interoceptive system when the hand was under threat.

    “Furthermore, across subjects, activity in multisensory areas reflecting ownership predicted the activity in the interoceptive system when the hand was under threat.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “We found a significant correlation between the activity in the bilateral ventral premotor cortex that reflects the rubber-hand illusion (2) and the threat-related BOLD response in the left anterior insular cortex (P < 0.05, correlation analysis; see SI Fig. 7).”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
      “our results reveal that the strength of the ownership-illusion (or the activity in multisensory areas reflecting this illusion) predicts the neuronal responses in areas associated with anxiety when the hand is under threat.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE. Science. 2004;305:875–877. doi: 10.1126/science.1097011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Participants reported the illusion of ownership was significantly stronger during synchronous brushing than during asynchronous stimulation.

    “The participants reported that the illusion of ownership was significantly stronger during the synchronous brushing (“ownership” condition) than during the asynchronous stimulation (“no-ownership” condition) [P < 0.001, paired two-tailed t test; see supporting information (SI) Fig. 4a].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
    • Rests on an assumption: The subjective ratings of ownership and anxiety are valid measures of the corresponding subjective experiences.
  • May combine two claims. 9
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Over and above basic activity, increases in anxiety-related activity during the ownership condition were observed and correlated with the ownership illusion.

    “However, over and above this basic activity we observed increases in anxiety-related activity during the ownership condition (SI Fig. 6), which was correlated with the ownership illusion (as described above; see Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
    • Rests on an assumption: The subjective ratings of ownership and anxiety are valid measures of the corresponding subjective experiences.

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Trends for activation in left insula and ACC only reached 0.01 uncorrected.

    “We also observed trends for activation in the left insula (x = −54, y = 16, z = 0) and ACC (x = −8. y = 12, z = 44). However, these only reached the level of 0.01 uncorrected (insula: t = 2.05, P < 0.01, uncorrected; ACC: t = 2.19, P < 0.01, uncorrected; see also BOLD plots in SI Fig. 8).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.

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

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Additional peaks in SMA proper and pre-SMA did not survive correction for multiple comparisons.

    “Fig. 2 also shows additional peaks that we found in the SMA proper {x = 0, y = −18, z = 74 [x, y, and z coordinates in Montréal Neurological Institute (MNI) space]} and pre-SMA (x = −8, y = 22, z = 56), but these did not survive correction for multiple comparisons (SMA: t = 3.95, P < 0.001 uncorrected; pre-SMA: t = 3.98, P < 0.001 uncorrected).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.

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

    Findingown data
    § Materials and Methods

    The illusion of ownership of the rubber hand started after 14.3 ± 9.1 sec (mean ± SD across participants).

    “The illusion of ownership of the rubber hand started after 14.3 ± 9.1 sec (mean ± SD across participants).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Similar levels of brain activity in insula, ACC, and medial wall motor areas in the rubber-hand-ownership and real-hand conditions verify the strength of the illusion and suggest engagement of common neural substrates.

    “This verifies the strength of the illusion of ownership and suggests the engagement of common neural substrates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Medial wall motor areas are activated when humans experience or anticipate painful stimuli.

    “It is also commonly observed that medial wall motor areas are activated when humans experience or anticipate painful stimuli (16, 26–28).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [16] Wager TD, Rilling JK, Smith EE, Sokolik A, Casey KL, Davidson RJ, Kosslyn SM, Rose RM, Cohen JD. Science. 2004;303:1162–1167. doi: 10.1126/science.1093065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Kwan CL, Crawley AP, Mikulis DJ, Davis KD. Pain. 2000;85:359–374. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00287-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [27] Hsieh JC, Stahle-Backdahl M, Hagermark O, Stone-Elander S, Rosenquist G, Ingvar M. Pain. 1996;64:303–314. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00129-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Farrell MJ, Laird AR, Egan GF. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25:129–139. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    The anxiety-activity was specific to threats to one's own body and was not related to seeing the syringe or empathy for pain.

    “Importantly, this anxiety-activity was specific to threats to one's own body and was not related to seeing the syringe or empathy for pain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
    • Rests on an assumption: The subjective ratings of ownership and anxiety are valid measures of the corresponding subjective experiences.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The illusory feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory areas such as premotor cortex.

    “This illusory feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory areas such as premotor cortex”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE. Science. 2004;305:875–877. doi: 10.1126/science.1097011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Ehrsson HH, Holmes NP, Passingham RE. J Neurosci. 2005;25:10564–10573. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0800-05.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Activity in SMA and pre-SMA increases before voluntary movement, reflecting preparation to move.

    “Furthermore, activity in the SMA and pre-SMA increases before voluntary movement, reflecting the preparation to move (21–25).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [21] Lee KM, Chang KH, Roh JK. Neuroimage. 1999;9:117–123. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1998.0393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] Cunnington R, Windischberger C, Moser E. Hum Mov Sci. 2005;24:644–656. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2005.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] Deecke L, Scheid P, Kornhuber HH. Exp Brain Res. 1969;7:158–168. doi: 10.1007/BF00235441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] Shima K, Tanji J. J Neurophysiol. 1998;80:3247–3260. doi: 10.1152/jn.1998.80.6.3247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] Tanji J, Kurata K. Neurosci Lett. 1979;12:201–206. doi: 10.1016/0304-3940(79)96062-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion

    Medial wall activity is unlikely to reflect actual movement because participants were not observed to move hand or fingers, there was no reliable contraction of the index finger muscle, and there was no activation of the primary motor cortex.

    “Finally, it is unlikely that medial wall activity reflects actual movement, because the participants were not observed to move their hand or fingers and there was no reliable contraction of their index finger muscle (see Monitoring of Hand Movement in SI Text) and no activation of the primary motor cortex (P > 0.001 uncorrected).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    People can be induced to experience an artificial arm as their own arm.

    “It has been shown that people can be induced to experience an artificial arm as their own arm (9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] Botvinick M, Cohen J. Nature. 1998;391:756. doi: 10.1038/35784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    BOLD signal in the pre-SMA increases when participants attend to the urge to produce a finger movement.

    “the BOLD signal in the pre-SMA increases when participants are asked to attend to the urge to produce a finger movement (20).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Lau HC, Rogers RD, Haggard P, Passingham RE. Science. 2004;303:1208–1210. doi: 10.1126/science.1090973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The key mechanism for the rubber-hand illusion relates to integration of visual, tactile, and proprioceptive information.

    “it has been proposed that the key mechanism for this effect relates to integration of visual, tactile, and proprioceptive information (2, 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE. Science. 2004;305:875–877. doi: 10.1126/science.1097011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Ehrsson HH, Holmes NP, Passingham RE. J Neurosci. 2005;25:10564–10573. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0800-05.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Electrical stimulation of SMA in humans induces an urge to move limbs.

    “It is of interest that electrical stimulation of SMA in humans induces an urge to move limbs (19)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] Fried I, Katz A, McCarthy G, Sass KJ, Williamson P, Spencer SS, Spencer DD. J Neurosci. 1991;11:3656–3666. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.11-11-03656.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Materials and Methods

    Participation was limited to subjects who felt the rubber-hand illusion in preliminary testing; 9 other subjects were not scanned because they did not experience the illusion.

    “Participation was limited to subjects who felt the rubber-hand illusion in preliminary testing; 9 other subjects were not scanned because they did not experience the illusion (see Prescanning Testing Phase in SI Text).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Tool use may cause changes in visuo-tactile integration and in the receptive fields of visuo-tactile cells in the parietal cortex, such that peripersonal space appears to extend from the hand to the tool.

    “Tool use may cause changes in visuo-tactile integration (39–41) and in the receptive fields of visuo-tactile cells in the parietal cortex (42), so that it appears as if peripersonal space extends from the hand to the tool.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [39] Maravita A, Spence C, Driver J. Curr Biol. 2003;13:R531–R539. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(03)00449-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [40] Holmes NP, Calvert GA, Spence C. Neurosci Lett. 2004;372:62–67. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2004.09.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [41] Farne A, Iriki A, Ladavas E. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43:238–248. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42] Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y. NeuroReport. 1996;7:2325–2330. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199610020-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data
    § Materials and Methods

    A statistical threshold of P < 0.005 (uncorrected) with a cluster size of 10 voxels or more was used to generate activation maps.

    “We first used the statistical threshold of P < 0.005 (uncorrected) and a cluster size of 10 voxels or more to generate activations maps.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Materials and Methods

    For statistical inference, a threshold of P < 0.05 after correction for the number of multiple comparisons (Family-Wise-Error correction) was used.

    “For statistical inference we then used the threshold of P < 0.05 after a correction for the number of multiple comparisons (Family-Wise-Error correction).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    To accommodate intersubject variability, the contrast images from all participants were entered into a random effect group analysis (second-level analysis).

    “To accommodate intersubject variability, the contrast images from all participants were entered into a random effect group analysis (second-level analysis).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    Because of an a priori hypothesis that threatening the hand would activate certain areas associated with pain anticipation and anxiety, a small volume correction was used in these regions.

    “Because we had an a priori hypothesis that threatening the hand would activate certain areas associated with pain anticipation and anxiety, we used a small volume correction in these regions (15, 17, 28, 36)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [15] Singer T, Seymour B, O'Doherty J, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Science. 2004;303:1157–1162. doi: 10.1126/science.1093535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] Ploghaus A, Tracey I, Gati JS, Clare S, Menon RS, Matthews PM, Rawlins JN. Science. 1999;284:1979–1981. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5422.1979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Farrell MJ, Laird AR, Egan GF. Hum Brain Mapp. 2005;25:129–139. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The anterior insular cortex is known to be activated during anticipation of pain, experience of pain, and empathy for pain.

    “We also found activation in the anterior insular cortex, and this too is known to be activated during anticipation of pain, experience of pain, and empathy for pain (15–17).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [15] Singer T, Seymour B, O'Doherty J, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Science. 2004;303:1157–1162. doi: 10.1126/science.1093535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [16] Wager TD, Rilling JK, Smith EE, Sokolik A, Casey KL, Davidson RJ, Kosslyn SM, Rose RM, Cohen JD. Science. 2004;303:1162–1167. doi: 10.1126/science.1093065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] Ploghaus A, Tracey I, Gati JS, Clare S, Menon RS, Matthews PM, Rawlins JN. Science. 1999;284:1979–1981. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5422.1979. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Materials and Methods

    To reduce potential head movements, the position of the head was fixed using foam pads.

    “Finally, to reduce potential head movements, we fixed the position of the head by using foam pads.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    To minimize the risk of movement-related artefacts, both experimenters in the scanner room stood as still as possible during the scans and only made small movements of their hands to deliver the stimuli.

    “To minimize the risk of movement-related artefacts, both experimenters in the scanner room stood as still as possible during the scans and only made small movements of their hands to deliver the stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    The recalibration of position sense means that as the needle approaches the rubber hand, it appears to be in peripersonal space and to represent a genuine threat.

    “This recalibration means that as the needle approaches the rubber hand, it appears to be in peripersonal space and to represent a genuine threat.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Insula and ACC activity reflect engagement of an interoceptive system that senses the physiological condition of the body.

    “Craig (35, 37) has argued that insula and ACC activity reflect engagement of an interoceptive system and that this system senses the physiological condition of the body.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [35] Craig AD. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003;13:500–505. doi: 10.1016/s0959-4388(03)00090-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Craig AD. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:655–666. doi: 10.1038/nrn894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Materials and Methods

    Gradient echo T2*-weighted echo-planar images sensitive to the BOLD contrast were acquired as an index of local increases in synaptic activity.

    “Gradient echo T2*-weighted echo-planar images (EPIs) sensitive to the BOLD contrast were acquired as an index of local increases in synaptic activity (48)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [48] Logothetis NK, Pauls J, Augath M, Trinath T, Oeltermann A. Nature. 2001;412:150–157. doi: 10.1038/35084005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Tactile sensations can be projected to the tip of hand-held tools during manipulation.

    “Further, tactile sensations can be projected to the tip of hand-held tools during manipulation (43–45).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [43] Yamamoto S, Moizumi S, Kitazawa S. J Neurophysiol. 2005;93:2856–2863. doi: 10.1152/jn.01015.2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [44] Gibson JJ. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1966. [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [45] Paillard J. In: The Use of Tools by Human and Non-Human Primates. Berthelet A, Chavaillon J, editors. New York: Oxford Univ Press; 1993. pp. 36–46. [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Materials and Methods

    The rubber-hand runs and the real-hand runs were conducted in a pseudorandomized order.

    “These two types of runs were conducted in a pseudorandomized order.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    To control for the foot response, participants were instructed to press the response key with their foot during the asynchronous brushing as well when they heard a tone.

    “To control for the foot response, the participants were instructed to press the response key with their foot during the asynchronous brushing as well when they heard a tone.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The distinction between self and nonself depends in part on activation of the interoceptive system.

    “He further suggests that the distinction between self and nonself depends in part on the activation of this system (37) [a similar idea also was expressed by Damasio (38)].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] Craig AD. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002;3:655–666. doi: 10.1038/nrn894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [38] Damasio. Nature. 2003;423:227. doi: 10.1038/423227a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

30 of 30

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.

    “As a control, we used asynchronous brush-strokes, which do not elicit the illusion.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It has not been established whether the feeling of ownership generalizes to domains beyond visual and tactile perception.

    “However, the imaging experiment of the rubber-hand illusion has hitherto depended on subjective report, and it has not been established whether the feeling of ownership generalizes to domains beyond visual and tactile perception.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The imaging experiment of the rubber-hand illusion has hitherto depended on subjective report.

    “However, the imaging experiment of the rubber-hand illusion has hitherto depended on subjective report”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The subjective ratings of ownership and anxiety are valid measures of the corresponding subjective experiences.

    “The participants reported that the illusion of ownership was significantly stronger during the synchronous brushing (“ownership” condition) than during the asynchronous stimulation (“no-ownership” condition) [P < 0.001, paired two-tailed t test; see supporting information (SI) Fig. 4a].”
    “They also rated greater anxiety when the rubber hand was threatened during the ownership condition, as compared with no-ownership condition (P < 0.001, paired two-tailed t test; SI Fig. 4b).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Phenomenologically, we do not experience tools as part of our own body.

    “However, phenomenologically, we do not experience tools as part of our own body.”
5 of 5

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?

  • There is a direct relationship between the degree of anxiety evoked by threatening an artificial body part and the strength of illusory body ownership.

    “This test has been used before to provide physiological evidence of body illusions [24], [25], and there is a direct relationship between the degree of anxiety evoked by threatening an artificial body part and the strength of illusory body ownership [25].”

    From If I were you: Perceptual illusion of body swapping (2008) · cites this paper as [25]

  • The SCR elicited by physical threats is a particularly good objective measure of body ownership.

    “The SCR elicited by physical threats is a particularly good objective measure of body ownership.”

    From If I were you: Perceptual illusion of body swapping (2008) · cites this paper as [25]

  • There is a direct linear relationship between the strength of ownership of a hand and the degree of anxiety experienced when the hand is being subjected to physical threats.

    “There is a direct linear relationship between the strength of ownership of a hand and the degree of anxiety experienced when the hand is being subjected to physical threats [25].”

    From If I were you: Perceptual illusion of body swapping (2008) · cites this paper as [25]

  • This relationship is mirrored by the activity in multisensory areas, related to ownership, and areas in the emotional system, related to anxiety and pain anticipation.

    “This relationship is mirrored by the activity in multisensory areas, related to ownership, and areas in the emotional system, related to anxiety and pain anticipation [25].”

    From If I were you: Perceptual illusion of body swapping (2008) · cites this paper as [25]

  • Synchronous stimulation causes a stress-evoked skin conductance response when the rubber hand is threatened.

    “a stress-evoked skin conductance response to be elicited when the rubber hand is threatened [48]”

    From Changing bodies changes minds: Owning another body affects social cognition (2015) · cites this paper as [48]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.1523/jneurosci.0800-05.2005 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ehrsson, H. H., Wiech, K., Weiskopf, N., Dolan, R. J., & Passingham, R. E.
Affiliations
  • National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Ehrsson, H. Henrik
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-06-05
Volume
104
Issue
23
Pages
9828-9833
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0610011104
PMC
PMC1887585
OpenAlex
W2150667231
Semantic Scholar
8672022635301f44ff6e32825af628c33e98c800
Cited by
390
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 20
FWCI
22.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • European Commission (27731)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
body ownership, rubber hand illusion, threats, anxiety, interoception, insula, anterior cingulate cortex, multisensory integration, self-consciousness, artificial limbs, withdrawal response
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Body Image, Brain, Brain Mapping, Consciousness, Discrimination, Psychological, Efferent Pathways, Hand, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male

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