Cited by 147Face Recognition and PerceptionMultisensory perception and integrationVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 95 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The Other in Me: Interpersonal Multisensory Stimulation Changes the Mental Representation of the Self

Open access
Tajadura-Jiménez, Ana, Grehl, Stephanie, Tsakiris, Manos·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that the well-known effect of multisensory stimulation on body-awareness can be extended to self-recognition. Seeing someone else's face being touched at the same time as one's own face elicits changes in the mental representation of the self-face. We sought to further elucidate the underlying mechanisms and the effects of interpersonal multisensory stimulation (IMS) on the mental representation of the self and others. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants saw an unfamiliar face being touched synchronously or asynchronously with their own face, as if they were looking in the mirror. Following synchronous, but not asynchronous, IMS, participants assimilated features of the other's face in the mental representation of their own face as evidenced by the change in the point of subjective equality for morphed pictures of the two faces. Interestingly, synchronous IMS resulted in a unidirectional change in the self-other distinction, affecting recognition of one's own face, but not recognition of the other's face. The participants' autonomic responses to objects approaching the other's face were higher following synchronous than asynchronous IMS, but this increase was not specific to the pattern of IMS in interaction with the viewed object. Finally, synchronous, as compared to asynchronous, IMS resulted in significant differences in participants' ratings of their experience, but unlike other bodily illusions, positive changes in subjective experience were related to the perceived physical similarity between the two faces, and not to identification. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Synchronous IMS produces quantifiable changes in the mental representations of one's face, as measured behaviorally. Changes in autonomic responses and in the subjective experience of self-identification were broadly consistent with patterns observed in other bodily illusions, but less robust. Overall, shared multisensory experiences between self and other can change the mental representation of one's identity, and the perceived similarity of others relative to one's self.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Synchronous interpersonal multisensory stimulation (IMS) between one’s own face and an unfamiliar other’s face produced a measurable, unidirectional shift in self-face recognition, with the other’s face assimilated into the mental representation of the self. Autonomic and subjective changes were broadly consistent with other bodily illusions but less robust.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1, synchronous IMS shifted the point of subjective equality toward the other’s face: mean PSE rose from 45.91±1.55 pre-test to 48.81±1.71 post-test, whereas asynchronous IMS changed from 46.22±1.43 to 45.36±1.67; the stimulation × timing interaction was significant, F(1,38)=4.38, p=.043, and the synchronous pre–post comparison was significant, t(38)=2.69, p=.011, corresponding to about a 3% shift.
  • Experiment 4 showed an asymmetric effect: for the “other to self” morph direction, synchronous IMS increased the percentage of other-face accepted as self from 50.1±3.25 to 55.33±3.0, while asynchronous changed from 52.83±3.31 to 51.0±3.24; the three-way interaction was significant, F(1,29)=4.3, p=.047, and the synchronous-vs-asynchronous difference was significant only for “other to self,” t(29)=2.18, p=.037, by approximately 5% morphing. The “self to other” direction did not reach significance, t(29)=.9, p=.375.
  • In Experiment 2, synchronous IMS increased autonomic responses to objects approaching the other’s face: heart rate deceleration showed a significant main effect of stimulation, F(1,38)=4.5, p=.04; electrodermal activity showed significant main effects of object, F(1,38)=7.6, p=.009, and stimulation, F(1,38)=6.4, p=.016, but no significant interaction, p=.9. Planned comparisons found greater EDA for the threatening-object/synchronous condition than for threatening-object/asynchronous, t(38)=2.03, p=.049, and non-threatening-object/synchronous, t(38)=2.24, p=.031.
  • In Experiment 3, synchronous versus asynchronous IMS produced significant differences in subjective ratings for touch referral (Q1, Q2), identification/ownership of the other’s face (Q3, Q4, Q6), perceived physical similarity between own and other face (Q7–Q9), and movement/control over the other’s face (Q10, Q11). However, ownership and identification items did not receive affirmative ratings; positive changes were related to perceived physical similarity, not identification.

Methods

  • Four experiments used interpersonal multisensory stimulation: participants viewed an unfamiliar, gender-matched face being touched while their own face was touched at the specularly congruent location, either synchronously or asynchronously by 1 s. Experiment 1 (39 participants; 23 female; Mage±SD=24±6) used a staircase-based self-recognition task before and after IMS; Experiment 2 used the same group in a different session and measured electrodermal activity and heart rate while a knife or spoon approached the other’s face; Experiment 3 (20 participants; 17 female; Mage±SD=21±4) used a 14-item subjective questionnaire; Experiment 4 (30 participants; 15 female; Mage±SD=21±4) used face-morphing movies in “other to self” and “self to other” directions.
  • Main analyses used within-subjects ANOVAs and planned paired t-tests, with alpha set at .05, 2-tailed unless otherwise specified. Experiment 3 used non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests because data did not pass normality testing.

Limitations

  • The paper states that Experiment 2’s lack of a significant interaction cannot support the hypothesis that enfacement specifically modulated arousal to threatening stimuli, rather than a purely attentional modulation; it identifies the need for an additional control condition with synchronous IMS but without changes in face representation, and notes that the exact time-onset of the enfacement illusion remains unknown.
  • The paper states that Experiment 1’s post-hoc directional pattern should be interpreted with caution because the two staircases were interleaved and the task was not designed to be sensitive to morphing direction.
  • Evident from the text: sample sizes were modest and several experiments had predominantly female participants (Experiment 1: 23/39 female; Experiment 3: 17/20 female; Experiment 4: 15/30 female), which may limit generalizability, though the paper does not state this as a limitation.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0040682

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 95 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 93 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 54
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 33
79 of 79
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The knife is a threatening stimulus and the spoon is a non-threatening stimulus.

    “a knife appeared from the left side of the screen, moving towards the model’s face and being slightly inserted into the right corner of the model’s mouth.”
    “a non-threatening object (a spoon) approached, and made contact with, the other’s face at the same rate and through the same trajectory as the threatening object.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The experimental situation resembles the experience of looking at oneself in a mirror.

    “We developed an experimental situation that resembles the experience of looking at oneself into the mirror, albeit we replaced the “mirror reflection” of one’s face with another, unfamiliar, person’s face.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The other’s face used in the study is unknown and unfamiliar to participants.

    “our paradigm is novel in that the “other’s” face is unknown and unfamiliar.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The knife is a threatening object and the spoon is a non-threatening object.

    “The mean HRD change scores ± SE in response to the different conditions relative to baseline were, following synchronous IMS 21.05±9.5 (threatening object) and 26.65±11.53 (non-threatening)”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Representations of self-identity must possess sufficient plasticity to ensure both the assimilation of changes and a sense of continuity over time.

    “Representations of self-identity must possess sufficient plasticity to ensure both the assimilation of changes and a sense of continuity over time.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The lack of a significant interaction in EDA does not invalidate the planned contrasts as tentative support for an effect of synchronous IMS on autonomic reactivity.

    “Therefore, despite the lack of a significant interaction, these planned contrasts provide some tentative support for an effect of synchronous IMS on autonomic reactivity related to stimuli, and perhaps more so for threatening stimuli, approaching the other’s face.”
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.

  • ConsistentF(1, 38) = 4.38reported p = .043 · recomputed p = .043

    “F(1, 38) = 4.38, p = .043”

  • Consistentt(38) = 2.69reported p = .011 · recomputed p = .011

    “t(38) = 2.69, p = .011”

  • ConsistentF(1, 38) = 4.5reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .040

    “F(1,38) = 4.5, p = .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 38) = 7.6reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .009

    “F(1,38) = 7.6, p = .009”

  • ConsistentF(1, 38) = 6.4reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .016

    “F(1,38) = 6.4, p = .016”

  • Consistentt(38) = 2.03reported p = .049 · recomputed p = .049

    “t(38) = 2.03, p = .049”

  • Consistentt(38) = 2.24reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .031

    “t(38) = 2.24, p = .031”

  • Consistentt(38) = 0.3reported p = .76 · recomputed p = .766

    “t(38) = .30, p = .76”

  • ConsistentF(3, 36) = 3.17reported p = .036 · recomputed p = .036

    “F(3,36) = 3.17, p = .036”

  • ConsistentF(3, 36) = 3.52reported p = .025 · recomputed p = .025

    “F(3,36) = 3.52, p = .025”

  • ConsistentF(1, 38) = 6.46reported p = .015 · recomputed p = .015

    “F(1, 38) = 6.46, p = .015”

  • ConsistentF(2, 37) = 14.5reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,37) = 14.5, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 38) = 4.4reported p = .043 · recomputed p = .043

    “F(1,38) = 4.4, p = .043”

  • ConsistentF(1, 29) = 4.3reported p = .047 · recomputed p = .047

    “F(1,29) = 4.3, p = .047”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.18reported p = .037 · recomputed p = .038

    “t(29) = 2.18, p = .037”

  • Consistentt(29) = 0.9reported p = .375 · recomputed p = .376

    “t(29) = .9, p = .375”

  • Consistentt(38) = 2.17reported p = .036 · recomputed p = .036

    “t(38) = 2.17, p = .036”

  • Consistentt(38) = 1reported p = .3 · recomputed p = .324

    “t(38) = 1.0, p = .3”

18 of 18

Self-check

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

  • Experiment 4 ANOVA denominator degrees of freedom omit the gender factor

    Minor

    The stated ANOVA includes gender as a two-group between-subjects factor. With 30 participants, its within-subjects interaction error term would have 30 − 2 = 28 degrees of freedom, not 29.

    Reported 29 · recomputed 28

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 147

Metadata

Authors
Tajadura-Jiménez, A., Grehl, S., & Tsakiris, M.
Affiliations
The University of Western Australia (AU)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-07-13
Volume
7
Issue
7
Pages
e40682
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009991525
Cited by
147
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (University of Western Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Royal Holloway Digital Repository (Royal Holloway University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Volkswagen Foundation
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G000719/1, RES‐061‐25‐0233)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (262853)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
self-other distinction, face recognition (cognition), body awareness, bodily illusions, point of subjective equality, autonomic responses, self-identification, perceived similarity
MeSH terms
Adult, Face, Female, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Self Concept, Recognition, Psychology, Young Adult

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