Cited by 953Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsMultisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 57 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

If I Were You: Perceptual Illusion of Body Swapping

Open access

Abstract

The concept of an individual swapping his or her body with that of another person has captured the imagination of writers and artists for decades. Although this topic has not been the subject of investigation in science, it exemplifies the fundamental question of why we have an ongoing experience of being located inside our bodies. Here we report a perceptual illusion of body-swapping that addresses directly this issue. Manipulation of the visual perspective, in combination with the receipt of correlated multisensory information from the body was sufficient to trigger the illusion that another person's body or an artificial body was one's own. This effect was so strong that people could experience being in another person's body when facing their own body and shaking hands with it. Our results are of fundamental importance because they identify the perceptual processes that produce the feeling of ownership of one's body.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation from a first-person perspective can make healthy volunteers experience a mannequin’s body, or another person’s body, as their own. The illusion is strong enough that participants can face their own body and shake hands with it while feeling located in the other body.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1, synchronous stroking of a mannequin’s abdomen produced questionnaire evidence of whole-body ownership; illusion statements differed significantly between synchronous and asynchronous conditions (p = .000, F(1, 95) = 107.508), while asynchronous controls showed no such illusory perceptions (p = .703, F(1, 223) = 1.513).
  • Threat-evoked skin conductance responses (SCRs) provided physiological evidence: threatening the mannequin with a knife in the synchronous condition elicited greater SCR than control conditions (N = 10, p = .009, Z = −2.599; p = .028, Z = −2.191), and ownership generalised from stimulated hands or abdomen to the whole body (N = 13, p = .011, Z = −2.511 and p = .033, Z = −2.132).
  • Only human-like bodies were owned: SCR was stronger when the mannequin was threatened in the synchronous condition than when a same-sized rectangular object was threatened after synchronous stimulation (N = 12, p = .008); synchronous vs asynchronous stimulation mattered for the mannequin (p = .04) but not for the rectangular object (p = .819).
  • In Experiment 5, participants facing their own body while shaking hands with the experimenter experienced the experimenter’s body as their own; SCR was greater when the experimenter’s wrist was threatened than when the participant’s own hand was threatened in the synchronous condition (N = 20, p = .0002, Z = −3.099), with no such difference in the asynchronous condition (p = .737) and a significant Hand × Condition interaction (p = .001, F(1, 19) = 17.083). Gender and body-shape differences were not significant (Experiment 1: N = 32, p = .613, F(1, 223) = .257; pooled SCR: p = .952, F = .004).

Methods

  • Five experiments used separate groups of naïve healthy volunteers: Experiment 1, N = 32 (16 females, mean age 25 ± 6 years); Experiment 2, N = 10 (2 females, 25 ± 4); Experiment 3, N = 13 (8 females, 27 ± 6.5); Experiment 4, N = 12 (4 females, 29 ± 6); Experiment 5, N = 20 (13 females, 27 ± 6.5). The studies were approved by the local Ethical Committee of Karolinska Institute.
  • Participants wore head-mounted displays connected to CCTV cameras mounted on a mannequin or the experimenter’s head to provide a first-person visual perspective. Experiments compared synchronous versus asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation (stroking the abdomen or hands, or hand squeezing) and measured threat-evoked SCRs using a Biopac MP150 system with electrodes on the left index and middle fingers.
  • Questionnaire ratings used a seven-point Likert scale. SCR was analysed as the peak conductance change up to 5 seconds after threat onset. Parametric tests were used for Experiments 1 and 4 (which passed normality testing), and non-parametric tests for the other experiments; alpha was set at 5%.

Limitations

  • Stated limitations: Not stated in the paper.
  • Evident from the text: sample sizes were small and each experiment used a separate group of healthy young adults (N = 10–32), so generalisability to clinical, older, or other populations is untested; the gender comparison pooled data from Experiments 3 and 4 to obtain sufficient males and females.
  • Evident from the text: in Experiment 5, the asynchronous control did not fully abolish the illusion—several participants reported a weaker illusion, and the first-person perspective still influenced them—which the authors note likely explains the lack of SCR difference between hands in the asynchronous condition.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0003832

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Set-up. Experimental set-up to induce illusory ownership of an artificial body (left panel). The participant could see the mannequin's body from the perspective of the mannequin's head (right panel).
Figure 1 Set-up. Experimental set-up to induce illusory ownership of an artificial body (left panel). The participant could see the mannequin's body from the perspective of the mannequin's head (right panel).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Questionnaire evidence for perceiving a mannequin's body as one's own. The questionnaire consisted of the seven statements (S1–S7). S1–S3 referred to the illusion and S4–S7 served as controls. Participants indicated their responses on a seven-step scale ranging from ‘agree strongly’ (+3) to ‘disagree strongly’ (−3). The high rating scores on the illusion statements that were observed only in the synchronous condition revealed that the participants experienced the illusion. The bars represent mean values and the error bars indicate standard errors. For details see Results and Methods.
Figure 2 Questionnaire evidence for perceiving a mannequin's body as one's own. The questionnaire consisted of the seven statements (S1–S7). S1–S3 referred to the illusion and S4–S7 served as controls. Participants indicated their responses on a seven-step scale ranging from ‘agree strongly’ (+3) to ‘disagree strongly’ (−3). The high rating scores on the illusion statements that were observed only in the synchronous condition revealed that the participants experienced the illusion. The bars represent mean values and the error bars indicate standard errors. For details see Results and Methods.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Physiological evidence for perceiving a mannequin's body as one's own. The mean skin conductance responses (SCRs) for 10 participants when the illusory body was “threatened” with either a knife or a spoon. The SCR is significantly greater in the illusion condition than in either of the control conditions (p = .009 and p = .028, two-tailed t-test). The response does not differ significantly between the two control conditions (p = .484, two-tailed t-test). Error bars denote standard errors.
Figure 3 Physiological evidence for perceiving a mannequin's body as one's own. The mean skin conductance responses (SCRs) for 10 participants when the illusory body was “threatened” with either a knife or a spoon. The SCR is significantly greater in the illusion condition than in either of the control conditions (p = .009 and p = .028, two-tailed t-test). The response does not differ significantly between the two control conditions (p = .484, two-tailed t-test). Error bars denote standard errors.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Generalisation of body ownership from the stimulated body part to the rest of the body. The mean skin conductance responses (SCRs) for 13 participants when the abdomen of the mannequin was “threatened” with a knife after a period of synchronous or asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation of the hands or the abdomen (the four conditions on the x axis). The SCR is significantly greater in the synchronous (illusion) conditions than in the control ones regardless of whether the hands or the abdomen were stimulated (p = .011 and p = .033, two tailed Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test). Mean values and standard errors are displayed.
Figure 4 Generalisation of body ownership from the stimulated body part to the rest of the body. The mean skin conductance responses (SCRs) for 13 participants when the abdomen of the mannequin was “threatened” with a knife after a period of synchronous or asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation of the hands or the abdomen (the four conditions on the x axis). The SCR is significantly greater in the synchronous (illusion) conditions than in the control ones regardless of whether the hands or the abdomen were stimulated (p = .011 and p = .033, two tailed Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test). Mean values and standard errors are displayed.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Only an object that looks like a human body can be owned. The figure displays the skin conductance responses (SCRs) from 12 participants when the mannequin and a rectangular object (a green box of the same size) were threatened in turn. The threat-evoked SCR was significantly greater when the mannequin was threatened in the synchronous condition than when the rectangular object was under threat after the same synchronous stimulation (p = .008, two-tailed t-test). A significant effect of synchronous vs. asynchronous stimulation was observed only when the mannequin was threatened (p = .04, two tailed t-test). Mean values and standard errors are displayed.
Figure 5 Only an object that looks like a human body can be owned. The figure displays the skin conductance responses (SCRs) from 12 participants when the mannequin and a rectangular object (a green box of the same size) were threatened in turn. The threat-evoked SCR was significantly greater when the mannequin was threatened in the synchronous condition than when the rectangular object was under threat after the same synchronous stimulation (p = .008, two-tailed t-test). A significant effect of synchronous vs. asynchronous stimulation was observed only when the mannequin was threatened (p = .04, two tailed t-test). Mean values and standard errors are displayed.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Experimental set-up to induce the ‘body swap illusion’.
Figure 6 Experimental set-up to induce the ‘body swap illusion’.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Objective evidence that people can experience swapping body with other people. Mean skin conductance responses (SCR) for twenty participants when either the experimenter's or the participant's hands were threatened during the illusion and the three control conditions (error bars represent standard errors). A significantly higher SRC was registered when the ‘new’ body (the experimenter's hand) was threatened with the knife in the illusion condition than when it was threatened in the control condition (p = 0.002, paired two-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test) or when the physical ‘old’ body was threatened in the illusion condition (p = .037, paired two-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test). The interaction between the main factors (Hand x Condition) was significant (p = .001, Two Way Repeated Measures ANOVA on standardized variables).
Figure 7 Objective evidence that people can experience swapping body with other people. Mean skin conductance responses (SCR) for twenty participants when either the experimenter's or the participant's hands were threatened during the illusion and the three control conditions (error bars represent standard errors). A significantly higher SRC was registered when the ‘new’ body (the experimenter's hand) was threatened with the knife in the illusion condition than when it was threatened in the control condition (p = 0.002, paired two-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test) or when the physical ‘old’ body was threatened in the illusion condition (p = .037, paired two-tailed Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test). The interaction between the main factors (Hand x Condition) was significant (p = .001, Two Way Repeated Measures ANOVA on standardized variables).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Questionnaire results for both sexes. The questionnaire consisted of the seven statements (S1–S7). There was no significant difference between the responses of female and male participants in the synchronous condition (p = .613, F(1,223) = .257, ANOVA). For details, see the Results and Methods.
Figure 8 Questionnaire results for both sexes. The questionnaire consisted of the seven statements (S1–S7). There was no significant difference between the responses of female and male participants in the synchronous condition (p = .613, F(1,223) = .257, ANOVA). For details, see the Results and Methods.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Illustration of the procedure to simulate cutting the mannequin with either a knife or a spoon in Experiment #2.
Figure 9 Illustration of the procedure to simulate cutting the mannequin with either a knife or a spoon in Experiment #2.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

33 Own interpretation · 33 Own result · 26 Not checked yet · 7 Own method · 2 No basis given

Verify all 57 references — free account

Show all 71 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 19
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 12
30 of 30
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The questionnaire statements S1–S3 validly capture the illusory experience of being the artificial body, and S4–S7 validly control for suggestibility and task-compliance.

    “Three statements were designed to capture the illusory experience of being the artificial body, and the other four served as controls for suggestibility and task-compliance (Figure 2).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Earlier work on body ownership has exclusively studied a single limb, the arm, using the traditional rubber hand illusion.

    “Earlier work on body ownership has exclusively studied a single limb, the arm, using the traditional rubber hand illusion.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Until now, it was not known whether the principles underlying changes in ownership would generalise to other body parts, or to an entire body.

    “Thus, until now, it was not known whether the principles underlying changes in ownership would generalise to other body parts, or to an entire body.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The body typically produces certain patterns of sensory signals from the different modalities.

    “the fact that the body typically produces certain patterns of sensory signals from the different modalities.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sensory experience of one's own body from the first person perspective is different from recognising oneself in mirrors, TV screens or other image representations as observed from a third person perspective.

    “The sensory experience of one's own body from the first person perspective is different from recognising oneself in mirrors, TV screens or other image representations as observed from a third person perspective.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When we recognise ourselves in a mirror, we do not have the experience that we are actually in the mirror, or that there has been a change in ownership of our body.

    “When we recognise ourselves in a mirror, for example, we do not have the experience that we are actually in the mirror, or that there has been a change in ownership of our body.”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Statistics recomputed

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

  • Not confirmedz = -2.599reported p = .028 · recomputed p = .009

    “Z = −2.599, p = .028”

1 of 1

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. M Minsky, 1980, Telepresence., Omni, 45

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 947

Metadata

Authors
Petkova, V. I., & Ehrsson, H. H.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Petkova, Valeria I.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2008-12-03
Volume
3
Issue
12
Pages
e3832
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170100837
Cited by
953
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 30
FWCI
54.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Stiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
body ownership, multisensory integration, visual perspective, self-localization, artificial bodies, perceptual illusions
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Body Image, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Illusions, Male, Perceptual Distortion, Photic Stimulation, Space Perception, Touch, Visual Perception, Human Body

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