CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 85Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsMemory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

First-person view of one’s body in immersive virtual reality: Influence on episodic memory

Open access
Bréchet, Lucie, Mange, Robin, Herbelin, Bruno, Theillaud, Quentin, Gauthier, Baptiste, Serino, Andrea, Blanke, Olaf·2019·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0197763PMC PMC6405051

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Episodic memories (EMs) are recollections of contextually rich and personally relevant past events. EM has been linked to the sense of self, allowing one to mentally travel back in subjective time and re-experience past events. However, the sense of self has recently been linked to online multisensory processing and bodily self-consciousness (BSC). It is currently unknown whether EM depends on BSC mechanisms. Here, we used a new immersive virtual reality (VR) system that maintained the perceptual richness of life episodes and fully controlled the experimental stimuli during encoding and retrieval, including the participant's body. Our data reveal a classical EM finding, which shows that memory for complex real-life like scenes decays over time. However, here we also report a novel finding that delayed retrieval performance can be enhanced when participants view their body as part of the virtual scene during encoding. This body effect was not observed when no virtual body or a moving control object was shown, thereby linking the sense of self, and BSC in particular, to EMs. The present VR methodology and the present behavioral findings will enable to study key aspects of EM in healthy participants and may be especially beneficial for the restoration of self-relevant memories in future experiments.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study used immersive virtual reality to test whether viewing one’s own body during encoding influences episodic memory for life-like 3D scenes. It found that delayed recognition was enhanced when participants saw their body as part of the virtual scene, whereas no such effect occurred without a body or with a moving control object.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1, recognition hit rate was lower after a one-hour delay (M = 55.5, SEM = 5.3) than immediately (M = 73.1, SEM = 3.6; t(29) = 2.7, p = 0.01), while false alarm rates did not differ.
  • False alarms decreased as more items changed between encoding and retrieval (F(2, 58) = 52.85, p < 0.0005, partial η² = 0.64), and confidence for false alarms increased with more changed items (F(1.121, 32.519) = 4.163, p = 0.02, partial η² = 0.12).
  • In Experiment 2, a significant delay × body interaction for hit rate (F(1,30) = 7.44, p = 0.01, partial η² = 0.19) was driven by higher delayed hit rate in the body condition (M = 82.5, SEM = 8.2) than the no-body condition (M = 63.7, SEM = 8.2; t(15) = 2.51, p = 0.02); no body effect appeared immediately.
  • In Experiment 3, object versus no-object conditions did not differ in hit rate (both M = 70.0) or false alarms (object M = 46.2, SEM = 7.7; no-object M = 46.0, SEM = 6.5), and confidence did not differ.

Methods

  • A total of 79 right-handed participants with normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no reported neurological or psychiatric deficits were recruited. Experiment 1 had 16 immediate and 15 one-hour delayed participants; Experiment 2 had 16 immediate and 16 delayed participants; Experiment 3 had 16 delayed participants.
  • Participants used an immersive VR system with 360° stereoscopic recordings, binaural audio, a head-mounted display, and depth cameras that could show or hide the participant’s real body from a first-person view. Encoding was incidental: participants explored pre-recorded rooms containing 10 everyday items while following a moving ball; retrieval was a surprise two-alternative forced-choice recognition task with confidence ratings from 0 to 9.
  • Experiment 2 manipulated body versus no-body view during encoding; Experiment 3 manipulated a moving non-bodily control object versus no object. Analyses used independent-samples t-tests and mixed ANOVAs, with Greenhouse-Geisser corrections where appropriate and Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests, alpha = 0.05.

Limitations

  • The paper states that only short delays were tested (“i.e. one hour”) and calls for future work, including neuroimaging, to investigate whether delayed-recall modulation relies on similar or distinct mechanisms and to test additional bodily self-consciousness constraints.
  • The paper notes that future studies should investigate other BSC aspects such as peripersonal space, embodiment, and visual-proprioceptive alignment, and that more detailed investigations are necessary because everyday encoding involves multisensory body information beyond what was tested.
  • Evident from the text: each experiment used small groups (15–16 participants per condition/group), participants were all right-handed, and the study tested healthy participants only, so generalization to other populations or clinical groups is not established here.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0197763

Cites

151 of 151 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

14 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 94 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Memory for complex real-life-like scenes decays over time in the immersive VR paradigm.

    “Our data reveal a classical EM finding, which shows that memory for complex real-life like scenes decays over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The body effect of enhanced delayed retrieval was not observed when no virtual body or a moving control object was shown.

    “This body effect was not observed when no virtual body or a moving control object was shown”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Delayed retrieval performance can be enhanced when participants view their body as part of the virtual scene during encoding.

    “However, here we also report a novel finding that delayed retrieval performance can be enhanced when participants view their body as part of the virtual scene during encoding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants experienced as if they were physically present in the pre-recorded scenes and seeing themselves (not a 3D avatar).
  • Findingown data

    In experiment 1, false alarm rate decreased progressively as the number of items changed between encoding and retrieval increased.

    “As predicted, analysis revealed a significant main effect for the number of items changed (F (2, 58) = 52.85, p < 0.0005, partial η2 = 0.64) (Fig 3a). Pairwise comparisons were performed for statistically significant main effects and revealed that participants made progressively fewer false alarms with increasing number of items (all p-values < 0.0005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In experiment 1, mean hit rate was significantly lower in the one-hour delay group than in the immediate group.

    “Mean hit rate was significantly lower in the delay group (M = 55.5, SEM = 5.3) than in the immediate group (M = 73.1, SEM = 3.6) (t (29) = 2.7, p = 0.01) (Fig 2a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • May combine two claims. 18
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In experiment 1, confidence for false alarms increased progressively with increasing number of items changed between sessions.

    “There was also a statistically significant main effect for the number of items changed (F (1.121, 32.519) = 4.163, p = 0.02, partial η2 = 0.12) (Fig 3b), revealing that participants were progressively more confident in their performance with increasing number of items that were changed between both sessions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In experiment 2, confidence judgements for false alarms had a significant main effect of number of items changed; other main effects and interactions were not significant.

    “The 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA for confidence judgements in false alarms revealed a significant main effect for the number of items changed, F (2, 30) = 8.38, p = 0.001. The other main effects and the interactions were not significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In experiment 2, false alarm rate had a significant main effect of number of items changed; other main effects and interactions were not significant.

    “The 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA for false alarms revealed a significant main effect for the number of items changed, F (1.173, 17.591) = 20.921, p < 0.001 (S1 Fig). The other main effects and interactions were not significant (Fig 4c and 4d).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The body effect on delayed retrieval was not observed when no virtual body was shown or when a moving control object was shown instead of the virtual body.

    “This body effect was not observed when no virtual body was shown or when a moving control object (instead of the virtual body) was shown, suggesting that embodied views lead to body-related performance changes, as reported in studies investigating BSC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although only short delays (one hour) were tested, participants remembered 3D scenes better when tested immediately after encoding than delayed retrieval.

    “Thus, although we only tested short delays (i.e. one hour), our data show that participants remembered 3D scenes better when tested immediately after encoding as compared to delayed retrieval.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The enhancement of EM performance in the body present condition was observed only in the one-hour delayed retrieval session, but not when retrieval followed immediately after encoding.

    “It is of relevance to point out that the enhancement of EM performance in the body present condition was observed only in the one hour delayed retrieval session, but not when the retrieval followed immediately after the encoding session.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Confidence levels dissociate from memory performance, as delay dependency and the view of one's body during encoding modulated recognition memory but not confidence levels.

    “However, our data also show that confidence levels dissociate from memory performance, as delay dependency and the view of one’s body (experiment 2) during encoding modulated recognition memory, but not confidence levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    View of the body enhances perceptual and cognitive tasks.

    “Based on BSC work that has shown that view of the body enhances perceptual and cognitive tasks [57,58]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [57] L Bergouignan, 2014, Out-of-body-induced hippocampal amnesia, PNAS source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [58] PL St. Jacques, 2017, Shifting visual perspective during retrieval shapes autobiographical memories, Neuroimage source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The order of presentation of the body and no-body condition was counterbalanced between participants.

    “The order of presentation of the body and no-body condition was counterbalanced between participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The presentation of the object and no-object condition was counterbalanced between participants.

    “The presentation of the object and no-object condition was counterbalanced between participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    Sample size was derived from power analysis targeting an effect size of 0.6 for the present experiments.

    “Sample size was derived from power analysis of previous BSC studies [97,98] and previous studies on mental time travel [28,30]. According to these studies, our target effect size was 0.6 for the present experiments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [97] O Blanke, 2014, Neurological and robot-controlled induction of an apparition, Curr Biol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [98] HD Park, 2016, Transient Modulations of Neural Responses to Heartbeats Covary with Bodily Self-Consciousness, J Neurosci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] S Arzy, 2009, Subjective mental time: the functional architecture of projecting the self to past and future, Eur J Neurosci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30] S Arzy, 2008, Self in time: imagined self-location influences neural activity related to mental time travel, J Neurosci source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Autonoetic consciousness is of fundamental relevance to episodic memory, allowing one to mentally travel back in subjective time and recollect one's previous experiences.

    “He argued that autonoetic consciousness is of fundamental relevance to EM, allowing one to mentally travel back in subjective time and recollect one’s previous experiences [2,18–20].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [2] E Tulving, 2002, Episodic Memory: From Mind to Brain, Annu Rev Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Tulving, 1985, Memory and Consciousness, Canadian Psychology source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] E Tulving, 1990, Priming and Human Memory Systems, Source Sci New Ser

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] MA Wheeler, 1997, Towards a theory of episodic memory: the frontal lobes and automoetic consciousness, Psychol Bull source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Objective memory accuracy and subjective memory confidence can dissociate.

    “Numerous behavioral cognitive studies have observed dissociations between memory accuracy and memory confidence [89–95].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [89] JM Talarico, 2004, Emotional Intensity Predicts Autobiographical Memory Experience, Mem Cognit source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [90] T Sharot, 2004, How arousal modulates memory: disentangling the effects of attention and retention, Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [91] T Sharot, 2007, How personal experience modulates the neural circuitry of memories of September 11, PNAS source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [92] E a Phelps, 2008, How (and Why) Emotion Enhances the Subjective Sense of Recollection, Curr Dir Psychol Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [93] F Dolcos, 2004, Dissociable effects of arousal and valence on prefrontal activity indexing emotional evaluation and subsequent memory: an event-related fMRI study, Neuroimage source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [94] CB Stone, 2013, Induced forgetting and reduced confidence in our personal past? The consequences of selectively retrieving emotional autobiographical memories, Acta Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [95] W Hirst, 2016, Flashbulb Memories, Curr Dir Psychol Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was approved by the local ethical committee and all three experiments were conducted in conformity with the Declaration of Helsinki.

    “The study was approved by the local ethical committee (IRB of Geneva University) and all three experiments were conducted in conformity with the Declaration of Helsinki.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Multisensory body-related signals are relevant not just for hand perception but also for bodily self-consciousness, including hand ownership, self-identification with the body, self-location, and the first-person perspective.

    “Such multisensory body-related signals are not just relevant for hand perception, but also for BSC, including hand ownership (i.e. the feeling that this hand is mine), self-identification with the body, self-location (i.e. experiencing the self as being located in space), and the first-person perspective (i.e. experiencing the world from a spatial origin with a direction) [42,43,96].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [42] O Blanke, 2012, Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness, Nat Rev Neurosci. Nature Publishing Group source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [43] O Blanke, 2015, Behavioral, Neural, and Computational Principles of Bodily Self-Consciousness, Neuron source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [96] O Blanke, 2009, Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood, Trends Cogn Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Bodily self-consciousness includes conscious experiences such as self-identification and self-location, as well as the first-person perspective.

    “BSC includes conscious experiences such as self-identification and self-location [36,37,44,45], as well as the first-person perspective [39,46,47].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [36] HH Ehrsson, 2007, The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences, Science source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] B Lenggenhager, 2007, Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self Consciousness, Science source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [44] VI Petkova, 2008, If I were you: Perceptual illusion of body swapping, PLoS One source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [45] JE Aspell, 2013, Turning Body and Self Inside Out, Psychol Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [39] S Ionta, 2011, Multi-sensory and sensorimotor foundation of bodily self-consciousness—an interdisciplinary approach, Front Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [46] C Pfeiffer, 2014, Visuospatial viewpoint manipulation during full-body illusion modulates subjective first-person perspective, Exp Brain Res source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [47] C Pfeiffer, 2016, Visual gravity contributes to subjective first-person perspective, Neurosci Conscious

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Perceiving one's body as part of a visual scene relies on visual, proprioceptive, and tactile cues, which are processed initially in different brain regions and subsequently integrated in multisensory brain regions.

    “Perceiving one’s body as part of a visual scene (for example a hand lying on a table) relies on i. visual, ii. proprioceptive, and iii. tactile cues. These signals are processed initially in different brain regions and subsequently integrated in multisensory brain regions [42,43].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [42] O Blanke, 2012, Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness, Nat Rev Neurosci. Nature Publishing Group source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [43] O Blanke, 2015, Behavioral, Neural, and Computational Principles of Bodily Self-Consciousness, Neuron source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Viewing the body increases tactile perception.

    “For instance, viewing the body increases tactile perception [119], modulates interpersonal tactile responses [120,121], affects social cognition [122,123], and concept processing [55].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [119] A Serino, 2010, Touch and the body, Neurosci Biobehav Rev source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The VR approach allows for more control of the environment, in particular the use of the exact same context for both encoding and retrieval phase as well as a digital method to manipulate and control the 3D stimulus material.

    “As such, our VR approach allows for more control of the environment, in particular the use of the exact same context for both the encoding and the retrieval phase as well as a digital method to manipulate and control the 3D stimulus material.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Combining immersive VR with memory research allowed both high control and reproducibility while allowing testing of real-life like scenes and events compared to standard retrieval tasks.

    “Combining immersive VR with memory research thus allowed us to get both high control and reproducibility, while allowing to test real-life like scenes and events as compared to standard retrieval tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The typical delay for hippocampal consolidation processes starts at approximately one hour; shorter delays may relate to short-term memory relying on distinct mechanisms.

    “Moreover, the typical delay for hippocampal consolidation processes starts at approximately one hour (for shorter delays it may rather relate to short-term memory, relying distinct mechanisms) [128–131].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [128] Y Dudai, 2004, The neurobiology of consolidations, or, how stable is the engram?, Annu Rev Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [129] LR Squire, 2015, Memory Consolidation, Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [130] JL McGaugh, 2015, Consolidating memories, Annu Rev Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [131] M Moscovitch, 2016, Episodic memory and beyond: The hippocampus and neocortex in transformation, Annu Rev Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Encoding while viewing one's body may provide a better separation of memory traces than encoding without a body, because multisensory integration of congruent signals from the body generates a more distinct target pattern to compare to the lures.

    “As such, the encoding while viewing one’s body may provide a better separation of memory traces than an encoding without a body as the multisensory integration of congruent signals from the body generates a more distinct target pattern to compare to the lures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Viewing the body affects concept processing.

    “For instance, viewing the body increases tactile perception [119], modulates interpersonal tactile responses [120,121], affects social cognition [122,123], and concept processing [55].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [55] E Canzoneri, 2016, Conceptual processing is referenced to the experienced location of the self, not to the location of the physical body, Cognition source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Viewing the body affects social cognition.

    “For instance, viewing the body increases tactile perception [119], modulates interpersonal tactile responses [120,121], affects social cognition [122,123], and concept processing [55].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [122] L Maister, 2015, Changing bodies changes minds: Owning another body affects social cognition, Trends Cogn Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [123] C Keysers, 2010, Somatosensation in social perception, Nat Rev Neurosci source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Viewing the body modulates interpersonal tactile responses.

    “For instance, viewing the body increases tactile perception [119], modulates interpersonal tactile responses [120,121], affects social cognition [122,123], and concept processing [55].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [120] A Serino, 2008, Viewing a Face (specially one’s own face) being touched enhances tactile perception on the face, Psychol Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [121] C Keysers, 2004, A touching sight: SII/PV activation during the observation and experience of touch, Neuron source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The ability to discriminate among similar experiences is a crucial feature of episodic memory.

    “Additionally, the ability to discriminate among similar experiences is a crucial feature of episodic memory [127].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [127] MA Yassa, 2011, Pattern separation in the hippocampus, Trends Neurosci. F source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Sharot & Yonelinas showed that emotion had no effect on recall when tested immediately after encoding, but only after a delay.

    “Thus, Sharot & Yonelinas [91] showed that emotion had no effect on recall when tested immediately after encoding, but only after a delay.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [91] T Sharot, 2007, How personal experience modulates the neural circuitry of memories of September 11, PNAS source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In experiment 3, there was no memory improvement in the object condition, arguing against a visual or attentional account and corroborating that the recognition enhancement is due to multisensory-motor bodily stimulation.

    “Data from this experiment revealed no memory improvement in the object condition, arguing against a visual or attentional account and further corroborating our proposal that the present recognition enhancement is due to multisensory-motor bodily stimulation that has been shown to be crucial for BSC [36,42,49,133] and characteristic of normal everyday experience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [36] HH Ehrsson, 2007, The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences, Science source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42] O Blanke, 2012, Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness, Nat Rev Neurosci. Nature Publishing Group source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [49] JP Noel, 2015, Peripersonal space as the space of the bodily self, Cognition source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [133] A Serino, 2013, Bodily ownership and self-location: Components of bodily self-consciousness, Conscious Cogn source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Enhanced self-relevance and recruitment of BSC-related processing by viewing one's body during encoding improves the consolidation process of episodic memories, but not shorter-spanned memories.

    “Accordingly, we argue that enhanced self-relevance and recruitment of BSC-related processing in the present experiment (by viewing one’s body during encoding) improves the consolidation process of episodic memories, but not shorter-spanned memories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Confidence in everyday, non-arousing EM, measured by remember/know paradigms and recollection questionnaires, declines together with objective memory performance.

    “This finding is in line with several studies showing that confidence in everyday, non-arousing EM, measured by remember/know paradigms and recollection questionnaires, declines together with the objective memory performance [95,108,111].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [95] W Hirst, 2016, Flashbulb Memories, Curr Dir Psychol Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [108] F Dolcos, 2005, Remembering one year later: role of the amygdala and the medial temporal lobe memory system in retrieving emotional memories, PNAS source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [111] JM Talarico, 2003, Flashbulb memories, Psychol Sci

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The present body effect on recognition memory cannot be generalized to an embodied object, as the object condition did not induce any performance changes.

    “These data also argue against the possibility that the present body effect on recognition memory can be generalized to an embodied object as the object condition did not induce any performance changes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants experienced as if they were physically present in the pre-recorded scenes and seeing themselves (not a 3D avatar).

    “As a result, participants experienced as if they would be physically present in the pre-recorded scenes and seeing oneself (not a 3D avatar).”
1 of 1

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?

  • Studies have repeatedly shown that egocentric perspective has a beneficial effect on subsequent memory performance.

    “Studies have repeatedly shown that egocentric perspective has a beneficial effect on subsequent memory performance33–35.”

    From Long-term Memory Reorganization of Navigational Episodes (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Discussion reports better delayed recognition when participants viewed their body during encoding in a first-person VR scene. But the comparison was with the same first-person scene without a visible body, not with a non-egocentric perspective; the benefit also appeared only after a delay. The Introduction discusses earlier perspective-related memory findings, but this paper does not establish the broader claim that egocentric perspective repeatedly improves subsequent memory performance. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F (2, 30) = 3.42, p = .04

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .04 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .046. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .046

  • Inconsistent p-value: F (2, 30) = 7.79, p < .0005

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .0005 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .002. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .0005 · recomputed p = .002

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t (29) = 0.7, p = .3

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .3 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .490 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .3 · recomputed p = .490

  • Inconsistent p-value: F (1.121, 32.519) = 4.163, p = .02

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .02 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .045. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .045

  • Inconsistent p-value: t (29) = 1.09, p = .2

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .2 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .285 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .285

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t (29) = 1.1, p = .2

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .2 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .280 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .280

6 of 6

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.

  • Doesn’t add upt(29) = 1.1reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .280

    “t (29) = 1.1, p = .2”

  • Doesn’t add upt(29) = 1.09reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .285

    “t (29) = 1.09, p = .2”

  • Doesn’t add upt(29) = 0.7reported p = .3 · recomputed p = .490

    “t (29) = 0.7, p = .3”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1.121, 32.519) = 4.163reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .045

    “F (1.121, 32.519) = 4.163, p = .02”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 30) = 7.79reported p < .0005 · recomputed p = .002

    “F (2, 30) = 7.79, p < .0005”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 30) = 3.42reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .046

    “F (2, 30) = 3.42, p = .04”

  • Consistentt(29) = 2.7reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .011

    “t (29) = 2.7, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(2, 58) = 52.85reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “F (2, 58) = 52.85, p < .0005”

  • ConsistentF(1, 30) = 7.44reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .011

    “F (1,30) = 7.44, p = .01”

  • Consistentt(15) = 2.51reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .024

    “t (15) = 2.51, p = .02”

  • ConsistentF(1.173, 17.591) = 20.921reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F (1.173, 17.591) = 20.921, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 30) = 8.38reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F (2, 30) = 8.38, p = .001”

  • Consistentt(15) = 0reported p = 1 · recomputed p = 1.000

    “t (15) = 0.00, p = 1.00”

  • Consistentt(15) = -0.05reported p = .96 · recomputed p = .961

    “t (15) = -0.05, p = .96”

14 of 14

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.

  • Experiment 2 false-alarm ANOVA degrees of freedom imply only one retrieval group

    Minor

    Experiment 2 reports 16 participants in each of two retrieval groups. For the stated mixed ANOVA across both groups, the within-subject error degrees of freedom should be based on 30 participants after accounting for retrieval group; the reported corrected degrees of freedom, 17.591, instead correspond to a base of 15.

  • Figure 1 reverses the body-condition labels

    Minor

    The figure caption labels the scene without a body as the body condition and the scene with a body as the no-body condition. The encoding-session description assigns those conditions to the opposite panels.

  • Figure captions call confidence ratings percentages

    Minor

    The figure caption says the confidence ratings are percentages, whereas the retrieval procedure defines confidence on a 0-9 rating scale. The reported confidence means are expressed on that rating scale, not as percentages.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 152 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. E Tulving, 1985, Memory and consciousne, Can Psychol, 26, 1, 10.1037/h0080017 · DOI · Paper page
  2. JM Talarico, 2003, Flashbulb memories, Psychol Sci, 14, 455

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bréchet, L., Mange, R., Herbelin, B., Theillaud, Q., Gauthier, B., Serino, A., & Blanke, O.
Affiliations
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Blanke, Olaf
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2019-03-07
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
e0197763
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0197763
PMC
PMC6405051
OpenAlex
W2922156729
Semantic Scholar
609325692d9bc83747b7482d3344b5e8c6db7214
Cited by
85
References
152
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
9.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (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)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Fondation Bertarelli
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
episodic memory, bodily self-consciousness, selfhood, immersive virtual reality, virtual body, memory decay, memory retrieval, multisensory processing
MeSH terms
Virtual Reality, Adult, Body Image, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Photic Stimulation, Mental Recall, Self Concept, User-Computer Interface, Visual Perception, Young Adult, Memory, Episodic

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