CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsTactile and Sensory InteractionsEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Sensory- and Action-Oriented Embodiment of Neurally-Interfaced Robotic Hand Prostheses

Open access
Di Pino, Giovanni, Romano, Daniele, Spaccasassi, Chiara, Mioli, Alessandro, D’Alonzo, Marco, Sacchetti, Rinaldo, Guglielmelli, Eugenio, Zollo, Loredana +3 more·2020·Frontiers in Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2020.00389PMC PMC7232597
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Embodiment is the percept that something not originally belonging to the self becomes part of the body. Feeling embodiment for a prosthesis may counteract amputees' altered image of the body and increase prosthesis acceptability. Prosthesis embodiment has been studied longitudinally in an amputee receiving feedback through intraneural and perineural multichannel electrodes implanted in her stump. Three factors-invasive (vs non-invasive) stimulation, training, and anthropomorphism-have been tested through two multisensory integration tasks: visuo-tactile integration (VTI) and crossing-hand effect in temporal order judgment (TOJ), the former more sensible to an extension of a safe margin around the body and the latter to action-oriented remapping. Results from the amputee participant were compared with the ones from healthy controls. Testing the participant with intraneural stimulation produced an extension of peripersonal space, a sign of prosthesis embodiment. One-month training extended the peripersonal space selectively on the side wearing the prostheses. More and less-anthropomorphic prostheses benefited of intraneural feedback and extended the peripersonal space. However, the worsening of TOJ performance following arm crossing was present only wearing the more trained, despite less anthropomorphic, prosthesis, suggesting that training was critical for our participant to achieve operative tool-like embodiment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnins.2020.00389

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Peripersonal space plasticity promotes the integration and acceptance of prosthetic devices.

    “has underscored the significance of PPS plasticity in promoting the integration and acceptance of prosthetic devices”

    From Neuroanatomical correlates of peripersonal space: bridging the gap between perception, action, emotion and social cognition (2024) · cites this paper as Di Pino et al. 2020

    The Abstract (page not specified) reports that prosthesis use extended peripersonal space, treating that change as a sign of embodiment, and says embodiment may increase prosthesis acceptability. It does not show that peripersonal-space plasticity itself promotes integration or acceptance; acceptance was not measured in the reported study. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Antfolk C. D’Alonzo M. Controzzi M. Lundborg G. Rosen B. Sebelius F. (2013). Artificial redirection of sensation from prosthetic fingers to the phantom hand map on transradial amputees: vibrotactile versus mechanotactile sensory feedback. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 21 112– 120. 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2217989 23033439 · DOI
  2. Biddiss E. A. Chau T. T. (2007). Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet. Orthotics Int. 31 236– 257. 10.1080/03093640600994581 17979010 · DOI
  3. Blanke O. (2012). Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13 556– 571. 10.1038/nrn3292 22805909 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bolognini N. Maravita A. (2007). Proprioceptive alignment of visual and somatosensory maps in the posterior parietal cortex. Curr. Biol. 17 1890– 1895. 10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.057 17964160 · DOI
  5. Canzoneri E. Marzolla M. Amoresano A. Verni G. Serino A. (2013a). Amputation and prosthesis implantation shape body and peripersonal space representations. Sci. Rep. 3: 2844. 10.1038/srep02844 24088746 PMC3789144 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Ciancio A. L. Cordella F. Barone R. Romeo R. A. Bellingegni A. D. Sacchetti R. (2016). Control of prosthetic hands via the peripheral nervous system. Front. Neurosci. 10: 116 10.3389/fnins.2016.00116 PMC4824757 27092041 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Clery J. Guipponi O. Odouard S. Wardak C. Ben Hamed S. (2015a). Impact prediction by looming visual stimuli enhances tactile detection. J. Neurosci. 35 4179– 4189. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3031-14.2015 25762665 PMC6605290 · DOI
  8. Clery J. Guipponi O. Wardak C. Ben Hamed S. (2015b). Neuronal bases of peripersonal and extrapersonal spaces, their plasticity and their dynamics: knowns and unknowns. Neuropsychologia 70 313– 326. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.022 25447371 · DOI
  9. Cordella F. Ciancio A. L. Sacchetti R. Davalli A. Cutti A. G. Guglielmelli E. (2016). Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Front. Neurosci. 10: 209 10.3389/fnins.2016.00209 PMC4864250 27242413 · DOI
  10. Crawford J. R. Garthwaite P. H. (2007). Comparison of a single case to a control or normative sample in neuropsychology: development of a Bayesian approach. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 24 343– 372. 10.1080/02643290701290146 18416496 · DOI
  11. Crawford J. R. Garthwaite P. H. Porter S. (2010). Point and interval estimates of effect sizes for the case-controls design in neuropsychology: rationale, methods, implementations, and proposed reporting standards. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 27 245– 260. 10.1080/02643294.2010.513967 20936548 · DOI
  12. Dadarlat M. C. O’doherty J. E. Sabes P. N. (2015). A learning-based approach to artificial sensory feedback leads to optimal integration. Nat. Neurosci. 18 138– 144. 10.1038/nn.3883 25420067 PMC4282864 · DOI · Paper page
  13. D’Alonzo M. Mioli A. Formica D. Pino G. D. (2020). Modulation of body representation impacts on efferent autonomic activity. J. Cogn. Neurosci. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1162/jocn_a_01532 31951156 PMC7116899 · DOI
  14. D’Alonzo M. Mioli A. Formica D. Vollero L. Di Pino G. (2019). Different level of virtualization of sight and touch produces the uncanny valley of avatar’s hand embodiment. Sci. Rep. 9: 19030. 10.1038/s41598-019-55478-z 31836765 PMC6911036 · DOI
  15. de Vignemont F. Iannetti G. D. (2015). How many peripersonal spaces? Neuropsychologia 70 327– 334. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.11.018 25448854 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Deneve S. Duhamel J. R. Pouget A. (2007). Optimal sensorimotor integration in recurrent cortical networks: a neural implementation of Kalman filters. J. Neurosci. 27 5744– 5756. 17522318 PMC6672763
  17. Dhillon G. S. Horch K. W. (2005). Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 13 468– 472. 10.1109/TNSRE.2005.856072 16425828 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Di Pino G. Denaro L. Vadala G. Marinozzi A. Tombini M. Ferreri F. (2013). Invasive neural interfaces: the perspective of the surgeon. J. Surg. Res. 188 77– 87. 10.1016/j.jss.2013.12.014 24433868 · DOI
  19. Di Pino G. Guglielmelli E. Rossini P. M. (2009). Neuroplasticity in amputees: main implications on bidirectional interfacing of cybernetic hand prostheses. Prog. Neurobiol. 88 114– 126. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2009.03.001 19482228 · DOI
  20. Di Pino G. Maravita A. Zollo L. Guglielmelli E. Di Lazzaro V. (2014). Augmentation-related brain plasticity. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 8: 109 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00109 PMC4052974 24966816 · DOI
  21. Di Pino G. Porcaro C. Tombini M. Assenza G. Pellegrino G. Tecchio F. (2012). A neurally-interfaced hand prosthesis tuned inter-hemispheric communication. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 30 407– 418. 10.3233/RNN-2012-120224 22751356 · DOI
  22. Drench M. E. (1994). Changes in body image secondary to disease and injury. Rehabil. Nurs. 19 31– 36. 10.1002/j.2048-7940.1994.tb01300.x 8159862 · DOI
  23. Ferreri F. Ponzo D. Vollero L. Guerra A. Di Pino G. Petrichella S. (2014). Does an intraneural interface short-term implant for robotic hand control modulate sensorimotor cortical integration? An EEG-TMS co-registration study on a human amputee. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 32 281– 292. 10.3233/RNN-130347 24177253 · DOI
  24. Flannery J. C. Faria S. H. (1999). Limb loss: Alterations in body image. J. Vasc. Nurs. 17 100– 106. 10.1016/s1062-0303(99)90036-5 10818888 · DOI
  25. Flor H. Nikolajsen L. Staehelin Jensen T. (2006). Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7 873– 881. 10.1038/nrn1991 17053811 · DOI
  26. Gillmeister H. Forster B. (2012). Hands behind your back: effects of arm posture on tactile attention in the space behind the body. Exp. Brain Res. 216 489– 497. 10.1007/s00221-011-2953-z 22101569 · DOI
  27. Graczyk E. L. Gill A. Tyler D. J. Resnik L. J. (2019). The benefits of sensation on the experience of a hand: a qualitative case series. PLoS One 14: e0211469. 10.1371/journal.pone.0211469 30703163 PMC6355013 · DOI
  28. Graczyk E. L. Resnik L. Schiefer M. A. Schmitt M. S. Tyler D. J. (2018). Home use of a neural-connected sensory prosthesis provides the functional and psychosocial experience of having a hand again. Sci. Rep. 8: 9866. 10.1038/s41598-018-26952-x 29959334 PMC6026118 · DOI
  29. Gray R. Tan H. Z. (2002). Dynamic and predictive links between touch and vision. Exp. Brain Res. 145 50– 55. 10.1007/s00221-002-1085-x 12070744 · DOI
  30. Graziano M. S. A. Cooke D. F. (2006). Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia 44 2621– 2635. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.09.011 17128446 · DOI
  31. Heed T. Buchholz V. N. Engel A. K. Röder B. (2015). Tactile remapping: from coordinate transformation to integration in sensorimotor processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19 251– 258. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.03.001 25843541 · DOI
  32. Hermosillo R. Ritterband-Rosenbaum A. Van Donkelaar P. (2011). Predicting future sensorimotor states influences current temporal decision making. J. Neurosci. 31 10019– 10022. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0037-11.2011 21734293 PMC6703331 · DOI
  33. Kikkert S. Mezue M. O’shea J. Henderson Slater D. Johansen-Berg H. Tracey I. (2019). Neural basis of induced phantom limb pain relief. Ann. Neurol. 85 59– 73. 10.1002/ana.25371 30383312 PMC6492189 · DOI
  34. Konen C. S. Haggard P. (2014). Multisensory parietal cortex contributes to visual enhancement of touch in humans: a single-pulse TMS study. Cereb. Cortex 24 501– 507. 10.1093/cercor/bhs331 23118199 · DOI
  35. Kuiken T. A. Marasco P. D. Lock B. A. Harden R. N. Dewald J. P. (2007). Redirection of cutaneous sensation from the hand to the chest skin of human amputees with targeted reinnervation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 20061– 20066. 10.1073/pnas.0706525104 18048339 PMC2148422 · DOI
  36. Lotti F. Ranieri F. Vadalà G. Zollo L. Di Pino G. (2017). Invasive intraneural interfaces: foreign body reaction issues. Front. Neurosci. 11: 497 10.3389/fnins.2017.00497 PMC5592213 28932181 · DOI
  37. Marasco P. D. Hebert J. S. Sensinger J. W. Shell C. E. Schofield J. S. Thumser Z. C. (2018). Illusory movement perception improves motor control for prosthetic hands. Sci. Transl. Med. 10: eaao6990. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aao6990 29540617 PMC5906050 · DOI
  38. Marasco P. D. Schultz A. E. Kuiken T. A. (2009). Sensory capacity of reinnervated skin after redirection of amputated upper limb nerves to the chest. Brain 132 1441– 1448. 10.1093/brain/awp082 19369486 PMC2685921 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Maravita A. Spence C. Kennett S. Driver J. (2002). Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition 83 B25– B34. 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00003-3 11869727 · DOI
  40. Marini F. Tagliabue C. F. Sposito A. V. Hernandez-Arieta A. Brugger P. Estevez N. (2013). Crossmodal representation of a functional robotic hand arises after extensive training in healthy participants. Neuropsychologia 53 178– 186. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.017 24296252 · DOI
  41. Mathôt S. Schreij D. Theeuwes J. (2012). OpenSesame: an open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 44 314– 324. 10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7 22083660 PMC3356517 · DOI
  42. Micera S. Citi L. Rigosa J. Carpaneto J. Raspopovic S. Di Pino G. (2010). Decoding information from neural signals recorded using intraneural electrodes: towards the development of a neurocontrolled hand prosthesis. Proc. IEEE 98 407– 417. 10.1186/1743-0003-8-53 21892926 PMC3177892 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Mioli A. D’alonzo M. Pellegrino G. Formica D. Di Pino G. (2018). Intermittent theta burst stimulation over ventral premotor cortex or inferior parietal lobule does not enhance the rubber hand illusion. Front. Neurosci. 12: 870. 10.3389/fnins.2018.00870 30532689 PMC6265367 · DOI
  44. Miyazaki M. Yamamoto S. Uchida S. Kitazawa S. (2006). Bayesian calibration of simultaneity in tactile temporal order judgment. Nat. Neurosci. 9 875– 877. 10.1038/nn1712 16732276 · DOI
  45. Murray C. D. (2004). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disabil. Rehabil. 26 963– 973. 10.1080/09638280410001696764 15371044 · DOI
  46. Niedernhuber M. Barone D. G. Lenggenhager B. (2018). Prostheses as extensions of the body: progress and challenges. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 92 1– 6. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.020 29772308 · DOI
  47. Oddo C. M. Raspopovic S. Artoni F. Mazzoni A. Spigler G. Petrini F. (2016). Intraneural stimulation elicits discrimination of textural features by artificial fingertip in intact and amputee humans. eLife 5: e09148. 10.7554/eLife.09148 26952132 PMC4798967 · DOI
  48. Ortiz-Catalan M. Håkansson B. Brånemark R. (2014). An osseointegrated human-machine gateway for long-term sensory feedback and motor control of artificial limbs. Sci. Transl. Med. 6: 257re6 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008933 25298322 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Page D. M. George J. A. Kluger D. T. Duncan C. Wendelken S. Davis T. (2018). Motor control and sensory feedback enhance prosthesis embodiment and reduce phantom pain after long-term hand amputation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12: 352. 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00352 30319374 PMC6166773 · DOI
  50. Peerdeman B. Boere D. Witteveen H. Hermens H. Stramigioli S. Rietman H. (2011). Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 48 719– 737. 10.1682/jrrd.2010.08.0161 21938658 · DOI
  51. Raspopovic S. Capogrosso M. Petrini F. M. Bonizzato M. Rigosa J. Di Pino G. (2014). Restoring natural sensory feedback in real-time bidirectional hand prostheses. Sci. Transl. Med. 6: 222ra19. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006820 24500407 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Reilly K. T. Sirigu A. (2008). The motor cortex and its role in phantom limb phenomena. Neuroscientist 14 195– 202. 10.1177/1073858407309466 17989169 · DOI
  53. Risso G. Valle G. Iberite F. Strauss I. Stieglitz T. Controzzi M. (2019). Optimal integration of intraneural somatosensory feedback with visual information: a single-case study. Sci. Rep. 9: 7916. 10.1038/s41598-019-43815-1 31133637 PMC6536542 · DOI
  54. Rizzolatti G. Luppino G. (2001). The cortical motor system. Neuron 31 889– 901. 11580891
  55. Rognini G. Petrini F. M. Raspopovic S. Valle G. Granata G. Strauss I. (2018). Multisensory bionic limb to achieve prosthesis embodiment and reduce distorted phantom limb perceptions. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 90 833– 836. 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318570 30100550 PMC6791810 · DOI
  56. Ruzzoli M. Soto-Faraco S. (2014). Alpha stimulation of the human parietal cortex attunes tactile perception to external space. Curr. Biol. 24 329– 332. 10.1016/j.cub.2013.12.029 24440394 · DOI
  57. Sato Y. Kawase T. Takano K. Spence C. Kansaku K. (2017). Incorporation of prosthetic limbs into the body representation of amputees: evidence from the crossed hands temporal order illusion. Prog. Brain Res. 236 225– 241. 10.1016/bs.pbr.2017.08.003 29157413 · DOI
  58. Scarry E. (1994). “ The merging of bodies and artifacts in the social contract,” in Culture on the Brink: Ideologies of Technology, eds Bender G. Druckrey T. (Seattle, WA: Bay Press), 85– 97.
  59. Schicke T. Roder B. (2006). Spatial remapping of touch: confusion of perceived stimulus order across hand and foot. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103 11808– 11813. 10.1073/pnas.0601486103 16864789 PMC1544251 · DOI
  60. Serino A. (2019). Peripersonal space (PPS) as a multisensory interface between the individual and the environment, defining the space of the self. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 99 138– 159. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.016 30685486 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Serino A. Akselrod M. Salomon R. Martuzzi R. Blefari M. L. Canzoneri E. (2017). Upper limb cortical maps in amputees with targeted muscle and sensory reinnervation. Brain 140 2993– 3011. 10.1093/brain/awx242 29088353 · DOI
  62. Serino A. Noel J. P. Galli G. Canzoneri E. Marmaroli P. Lissek H. (2015). Body part-centered and full body-centered peripersonal space representations. Sci. Rep. 5: 18603. 10.1038/srep18603 26690698 PMC4686995 · DOI
  63. Shore D. I. Spry E. Spence C. (2002). Confusing the mind by crossing the hands. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 14 153– 163. 10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00070-8 12063139 · DOI
  64. Spaccasassi C. Romano D. Maravita A. (2019). Everything is worth when it is close to my body: how spatial proximity and stimulus valence affect visuo-tactile integration. Acta Psychol. 192 42– 51. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.10.013 30412839 · DOI
  65. Takahashi T. Kansaku K. Wada M. Shibuya S. Kitazawa S. (2013). Neural correlates of tactile temporal-order judgment in humans: an fMRI Study. Cereb. Cortex 23 1952– 1964. 10.1093/cercor/bhs179 22761307 · DOI
  66. Tomassini A. Gori M. Baud-Bovy G. Sandini G. Morrone M. C. (2014). Motor commands induce time compression for tactile stimuli. J. Neurosci. 34 9164– 9172. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2782-13.2014 24990936 PMC4112941 · DOI
  67. Tözeren A. (1999). Human Body Dynamics: Classical Mechanics and Human Movement. London: Springer Science & Business Media.
  68. Tsakiris M. Carpenter L. James D. Fotopoulou A. (2010). Hands only illusion: multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects. Exp. Brain Res. 204 343– 352. 10.1007/s00221-009-2039-3 19820918 · DOI
  69. Vadalà G. Di Pino G. Ambrosio L. Diaz B. L. Denaro V. (2017). Targeted muscle reinnervation for improved control of myoelectric upper limb prostheses. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 31(4 Suppl. 1), 183– 189. 29188681
  70. Valle G. Mazzoni A. Iberite F. D’anna E. Strauss I. Granata G. (2018). Biomimetic intraneural sensory feedback enhances sensation naturalness, tactile sensitivity, and manual dexterity in a bidirectional prosthesis. Neuron 100, 37– 45.e7. 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.033 30244887 · DOI
  71. Yamamoto S. Kitazawa S. (2001a). Reversal of subjective temporal order due to arm crossing. Nat. Neurosci. 4 759– 765. 10.1038/89559 11426234 · DOI
  72. Yamamoto S. Kitazawa S. (2001b). Sensation at the tips of invisible tools. Nat. Neurosci. 4 979– 980. 10.1038/nn721 11544483 · DOI
  73. Yamamoto S. Moizumi S. Kitazawa S. (2005). Referral of tactile sensation to the tips of L-shaped sticks. J. Neurophysiol. 93 2856– 2863. 10.1152/jn.01015.2004 15634708 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Zangrandi A. Mioli A. D’Alonzo M. Formica D. Pellegrino G. Di Pino G. (2019). Conditioning transcranial magnetic stimulation of ventral premotor cortex shortens simple reaction time. Cortex 121 322– 331. 10.1016/j.cortex.2019.09.006 31670027 PMC7116827 · DOI
  75. Zollo L. Di Pino G. Ciancio A. L. Ranieri F. Cordella F. Gentile C. (2019). Restoring tactile sensations via neural interfaces for real-time force-and-slippage closed-loop control of bionic hands. Sci. Robot. 4: eaau9924. 10.1126/scirobotics.aau9924 31620665 PMC6795534 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Di Pino, G., Romano, D., Spaccasassi, C., Mioli, A., D’Alonzo, M., Sacchetti, R., Guglielmelli, E., Zollo, L., Di Lazzaro, V., Denaro, V., & Maravita, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
  • Università Campus Bio-Medico (IT)
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2020-05-07
Volume
14
Pages
389-389
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnins.2020.00389
PMC
PMC7232597
OpenAlex
W3023956029
Cited by
52
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 3
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione Contro Gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (E58C13000990001)
  • European Research Council (678908)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
intraneural stimulation, peripersonal space, visual-tactile integration, temporal order judgment, anthropomorphism, prosthetic training, amputees, neural interfaces, multisensory integration, body image

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.

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