Looking for Myself: Current Multisensory Input Alters Self-Face Recognition

In the citing paper

“The first relevant finding to support our argument is that experimentally induced modulations of body ownership enhance perceived physical similarity between self and other.”

In the citing paper

“In a more objective quantification of a comparable effect, participants accepted morphed photos of faces with a higher percentage of the other as depicting themselves after experiencing an enfacement illusion, suggesting that the participants' stored representations of their own faces were altered to incorporate aspects of the other person [26,35,36].”

In the citing paper

“For example, after the rubber hand illusion, participants rated the rubber hand as more physically similar to their own [26].”

In the citing paper

“produces a measurable bias in self-face recognition, whereby participants perceive the other's face as looking more like their own [26,35,36].”

In the citing paper

“Tsakiris [32] showed that synchronous, but not asynchronous, visuo-tactile stimulation between the participant’s own face and a morphed face, containing a blending of the facial features of the participant (50%) with the features of someone else’s face (50%), produced a measurable bias in self-face recognition.”

In the citing paper

“Using unfamiliar faces rules out the possibility that the bias in self-face recognition towards the other’s face could be accounted simply by face familiarity and affiliation with the other [32], while obtaining a baseline self-recognition prior to stimulation allows us to quantify the exact change in self-face recognition as a result of multisensory stimulation (cf. [33]).”

In the citing paper

“These findings are compatible with the behavioral results of Tsakiris [32] and Sforza et al. [33], but importantly, they show, for the first time, that IMS between one’s own face and a completely unknown face can affect the mental representation of one’s own face.”

In the citing paper

“Tsakiris [32] used a self-other morphed face during visuo-tactile stimulation, rather than an unfamiliar other;”

In the citing paper

“This issue was investigated by Tsakiris [32] and Sforza et al. [33], who failed to find significant differences between self-recognition changes for the “self to other” and “other to self” directions [32] and between the judgments given under different instruction conditions (e.g., to evaluate the amount of “self” or to evaluate the amount of “other” contained in the morphs) [33].”

In the citing paper

“Experiment 1 was designed to control for potential confounds reported in previous studies, such as the use of a familiar face [32], [33] and the lack of a pre-test baseline self-recognition performance [33].”

In the citing paper

“This asymmetric effect for the two directions of morphing could also be observed in Experiment 1, but was not found in previous studies where the other’s face was a familiar one [32], [33].”

In the citing paper

“Is it possible that synchronous IMS disrupts face recognition performance in general? This seems unlikely, given that Tsakiris [32] showed the behavioral effect to be specific to the face seen during visuo-tactile stimulation, and not to other familiar faces that were not seen during stimulation.”

In the citing paper

“The percentage of change reported in Experiment 1 is comparable to that reported in similar studies that used a familiar “other” face (1.8% in [32], and 4.4% in [33]).”

In the citing paper

“Previous studies failed to find significant differences between self-recognition changes for the “self to other” and “other to self” directions in a video morphing from one face to the other [32], a task identical to the one used in our Experiment 4, and between the judgments of morphed images under different instruction conditions (either to evaluate the amount of “self” or to evaluate the amount”