The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 49 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response.
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
22 Not checked yet · 21 Own interpretation · 14 Own result · 8 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE. Science. 2004;305:875–877. doi: 10.1126/science.1097011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, in the present experiment, some participants spontaneously reported that they had an urge to withdraw the rubber hand in the ownership condition when the needle approached the hand.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found similar levels of activity (P > 0.05 uncorrected) in the bilateral anterior insula (SI Fig. 8; right insula not shown), ACC (SI Fig. 8), and pre-SMA cortex (Fig. 2) when we threatened the real hand and the rubber hand in the ownership condition.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“This relationship was mirrored by similar levels of brain activity in the insula, ACC, and medial wall motor areas in the rubber-hand-ownership condition and the real-hand condition.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“We found similar levels of activity (P > 0.05 uncorrected) in the bilateral anterior insula (SI Fig. 8; right insula not shown), ACC (SI Fig. 8), and pre-SMA cortex (Fig. 2) when we threatened the real hand and the rubber hand in the ownership condition.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“We have demonstrated that when people experience that an artificial limb is part of their own body, they display the same emotional responses and defense reactions as when their real limb is threatened.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“we found that the greater the vividness of the rubber-hand illusion, the greater the threat-related BOLD response in the left anterior insula cortex (x = −42, y = 20, z = 10, t = 3.63, R2 = 0.44, P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons), right anterior insula (x = 40, y = 28, z = 6, t = 3.78, R2 = 0.46, P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons), and bilateral ACC (x = −10, y = 4, z = 40,”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“The most compelling finding in relation to our hypothesis was that the more strongly the participants felt the rubber hand to be their own hand, the greater the activity in the ACC and left insular cortex when the hand was under threat (Fig. 3).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that the level of anxiety when the rubber hand was threatened during the illusion was similar to the anxiety registered when the participants' real hand was threatened (P > 0.05, paired one-tailed t test; SI Fig. 4b).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“When the participants saw the needle approaching the rubber hand during the ownership condition, they reported similar levels of anxiety as when their real hand was threatened.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The illusion of ownership of the rubber hand started after 14.3 ± 9.1 sec (mean ± SD across participants).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This verifies the strength of the illusion of ownership and suggests the engagement of common neural substrates.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is also commonly observed that medial wall motor areas are activated when humans experience or anticipate painful stimuli (16, 26–28).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This illusory feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory areas such as premotor cortex”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE. Science. 2004;305:875–877. doi: 10.1126/science.1097011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, activity in the SMA and pre-SMA increases before voluntary movement, reflecting the preparation to move (21–25).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [25] Tanji J, Kurata K. Neurosci Lett. 1979;12:201–206. doi: 10.1016/0304-3940(79)96062-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Asynchronous brush-strokes do not elicit the illusion of ownership.
In the paper
“It has been shown that people can be induced to experience an artificial arm as their own arm (9).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Botvinick M, Cohen J. Nature. 1998;391:756. doi: 10.1038/35784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the BOLD signal in the pre-SMA increases when participants are asked to attend to the urge to produce a finger movement (20).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Lau HC, Rogers RD, Haggard P, Passingham RE. Science. 2004;303:1208–1210. doi: 10.1126/science.1090973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it has been proposed that the key mechanism for this effect relates to integration of visual, tactile, and proprioceptive information (2, 3).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE. Science. 2004;305:875–877. doi: 10.1126/science.1097011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [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
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It is of interest that electrical stimulation of SMA in humans induces an urge to move limbs (19)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plainn = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [42] Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y. NeuroReport. 1996;7:2325–2330. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199610020-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We first used the statistical threshold of P < 0.005 (uncorrected) and a cluster size of 10 voxels or more to generate activations maps.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To accommodate intersubject variability, the contrast images from all participants were entered into a random effect group analysis (second-level analysis).”
plainn = 19- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, to reduce potential head movements, we fixed the position of the head by using foam pads.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This recalibration means that as the needle approaches the rubber hand, it appears to be in peripersonal space and to represent a genuine threat.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Further, tactile sensations can be projected to the tip of hand-held tools during manipulation (43–45).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [44] Gibson JJ. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These two types of runs were conducted in a pseudorandomized order.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)].”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
The expression of the emotions in man and animals.
Darwin, C. D. (1872) · J. Murray eBooks · doi:10.1037/10001-000 · Cited by 12,120
Neurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Augath, M., Trinath, T., & Oeltermann, A. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35084005 · Cited by 6,551
The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems
West, C. K., & Gibson, J. J. (1969) · Journal of Aesthetic Education · doi:10.2307/3331482 · Cited by 6,344
How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body
Craig, A. D. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn894 · Cited by 6,006
Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see
Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35784 · Cited by 4,410
Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093535 · Cited by 3,929
Self-citationThe Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems
Boring, E. G., & Gibson, J. J. (1967) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1420561 · Cited by 3,186
Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body
(Bud) Craig, A. (2003) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(03)00090-4 · Cited by 2,556
Functional imaging of brain responses to pain. A review and meta-analysis (2000)
Peyron, R., Laurent, B., & García-Larrea, L. (2000) · Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/s0987-7053(00)00227-6 · Cited by 2,171
Placebo-Induced Changes in fMRI in the Anticipation and Experience of Pain
Wager, T. D., Rilling, J. K., Smith, E. E., Sokolik, A., Casey, K. L., Davidson, R. J., Kosslyn, S. M., Rose, R. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093065 · Cited by 1,992
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1523/jneurosci.0800-05.2005 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. C. (2012) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00048.2011 · Cited by 2,223
The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality
Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012) · PRESENCE Virtual and Augmented Reality · doi:10.1162/pres_a_00124 · Cited by 1,901
Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness.
Blanke, O. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3292 · Cited by 1,147
First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality
Slater, M., Spanlang, B., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Blanke, O. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010564 · Cited by 1,090
My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership.
Tsakiris, M. (2010) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.034 · Cited by 1,069
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- 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
- green
- europepmc.org
- 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.
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
