References
- 1Abdulkarim, Z., Hayatou, Z., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2021). Sustained rubber hand illusion after the end of visuotactile stimulation with a similar time course for the reduction of subjective ownership and proprioceptive drift. Experimental Brain Research, 239(12), 3471–3486. 10.1007/s00221-021-06211-8
- 2Bekrater-Bodmann, R., Reinhard, I., Diers, M., Fuchs, X., & Flor, H. (2021). Relationship of prosthesis ownership and phantom limb pain: results of a survey in 2383 limb amputees. Pain, 162(2), 630–640. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002063
- 3Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see. Nature, 391(6669), Article 756. 10.1038/35784
- 4Caspar, E. A., De Beir, A., Magalhaes De Saldanha Da Gama, P. A., Yernaux, F., Cleeremans, A., & Vanderborght, B. (2015). New frontiers in the rubber hand experiment: When a robotic hand becomes one’s own. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 744–755. 10.3758/s13428-014-0498-3
- 5Castro, F., Lenggenhager, B., Zeller, D., Pellegrino, G., D’Alonzo, M., & Di Pino, G. (2023). From rubber hands to neuroprosthetics: Neural correlates of embodiment. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 153, Article 105351. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105351
- 6Chancel, M., Iriye, H., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2022). Causal inference of body ownership in the posterior parietal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 42(37), 7131–7143. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0656-22.2022
- 7Dummer, T., Picot-Annand, A., Neal, T., & Moore, C. (2009). Movement and the rubber hand illusion. Perception, 38(2), 271–280. 10.1068/p5921
- 8Eck, J., Dignath, D., Kalckert, A., & Pfister, R. (2022). Instant disembodiment of virtual body parts. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84(8), 2725–2740. 10.3758/s13414-022-02544-w
- 9Eck, J., & Pfister, R. (2024). Bound by Experience: Updating the Body Representation When Using Virtual Objects. Human Factors, Advance online publication. 10.1177/00187208241258315
- 10Ehrsson, H. H. (2020).
Multisensory processes in body ownership . In: K. Sathian & V. S. Ramachandran (Eds.), Multisensory perception: from laboratory to clinic (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-12-812492-5.00008-5 - 11Ehrsson, H. H., Holmes, N. P., & Passingham, R. E. (2005). Touching a rubber hand: Feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(45), 10564–10573. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0800-05.2005
- 12Ehrsson, H. H., Rosén, B., Stockselius, A., Ragnö, C., Köhler, P., & Lundborg, G. (2008). Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 131(12), 3443–3452. 10.1093/brain/awn297
- 13Engdahl, S. M., Meehan, S. K., & Gates, D. H. (2020). Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 15471. 10.1038/s41598-020-72470-0
- 14Forster, P. P., Karimpur, H., & Fiehler, K. (2022). Demand characteristics challenge effects in embodiment and presence. Scientific Reports 12(1), Article 14084. 10.1038/s41598-022-18160-5
- 15Gentile, G., Guterstam, A., Brozzoli, C., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2013). Disintegration of multisensory signals from the real hand reduces default limb self-attribution: An fMRI study. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(33), 13350–13366. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1363-13.2013
- 16Gouzien, A., de Vignemont, F., Touillet, A., Martinet, N., De Graaf, J., Jarrassé, N., & Roby-Brami, A. (2017). Reachability and the sense of embodiment in amputees using prostheses. Scientific Reports, 7(1), Article 4999. 10.1038/s41598-017-05094-6
- 17Graczyk, 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. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 9866. 10.1038/s41598-018-26952-x
- 18Harris, J. A. (2024). The sequencing of trials during partial reinforcement affects subsequent extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 50(1), 1–10. 10.1037/xan0000369
- 19Holmes, N. P., & Spence, C. (2005). Multisensory integration: space, time and superadditivity. Current Biology, 15(18), R762–R764. 10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.058
- 20Hulsbosch, A., Beckers, T., De Meyer, H., Danckaerts, M., Van Liefferinge, D., Tripp, G., & Van der Oord, S. (2023). Instrumental learning and behavioral persistence in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity-disorder: Does reinforcement frequency matter? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 64(11), 1631–1640. 10.1111/jcpp.13805
- 21Kalckert, A. (2018). Commentary: Switching to the rubber hand. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00588
- 22Kalckert, A., Bico, I., & Fong, J. X. (2019). Illusions With Hands, but Not With Balloons – Comparing Ownership and Referral of Touch for a Corporal and Noncorporal Object After Visuotactile Stimulation. Perception, 48(5), 447–455. 10.1177/0301006619839286
- 23Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2012). Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: A dissociation of ownership and agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 40. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040
- 24Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2014a). The moving rubber hand illusion revisited: Comparing movements and visuotactile stimulation to induce illusory ownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 26, 117–132. 10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.003
- 25Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2014b). The spatial distance rule in the moving and classical rubber hand illusions. Consciousness and Cognition, 30, 118–132. 10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.022
- 26Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2017). The onset time of the ownership sensation in the moving rubber hand illusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 344. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00344
- 27Knoblich, G., & Kircher, T. T. (2004). Deceiving oneself about being in control: conscious detection of changes in visuomotor coupling. Journal of experimental psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 657–666. 10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.657
- 28Lenggenhager, B., Arnold, C. A., & Giummarra, M. J. (2014). Phantom limbs: pain, embodiment, and scientific advances in integrative therapies. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews Cognitive science, 5(2), 221–231. 10.1002/wcs.1277
- 29Liesner, M., Hinz, N., & Kunde, W. (2021). How action shapes body ownership momentarily and throughout the lifespan. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 13. 10.3389/fnhum.2021.697810
- 30Lin, L., & Jörg, S. (2016, July 22–23).
Need a hand? How appearance affects the virtual hand illusion . Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (pp. 69–76). Anaheim. 10.1145/2931002.2931006 - 31Manz, S., Valette, R., Damonte, F., Avanci Gaudio, L., Gonzalez-Vargas, J., Sartori, M., Dosen, S., & Rietman, J. (2022). A review of user needs to drive the development of lower limb prostheses. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 19(1), 119. 10.1186/s12984-022-01097-1
- 32Middleton, A., & Ortiz-Catalan, M. (2020). Neuromusculoskeletal Arm Prostheses: Personal and Social Implications of Living with an Intimately Integrated Bionic Arm. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 14, Article 39. 10.3389/fnbot.2020.00039
- 33Murphy, E. S., & Lupfer, G. J. (2014).
Basic principles of operant conditioning . In: F. K. McSweeney & E. S. Murphy (Eds.), The wiley blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning (pp. 167–194. 738 Pages). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118468135.ch8. Retrieved fromhttps://www.proquest.com/books/basic-principles-operant-conditioning/docview/1560819398/se-2 - 34Murray, C. D. (2004). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(16), 963–973. 10.1080/09638280410001696764
- 35Murray, C. D. (2008).
Embodiment and Prosthetics . In: P. Gallagher, D. Desmond & M. MacLachlan (Eds.), Psychoprosthetics. London: Springer. 10.1007/978-1-84628-980-4_9 - 36Newport, R., & Gilpin, H. R. (2011). Multisensory disintegration and the disappearing hand trick. Current Biology, 21(19), R804–R805. 10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.044
- 37Page, D. M., George, J. A., Kluger, D. T., Duncan, C., Wendelken, S., Davis, T., Hutchinson, D. T., & Clark, G. A. (2018). Motor Control and Sensory Feedback Enhance Prosthesis Embodiment and Reduce Phantom Pain After Long-Term Hand Amputation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, Article 352. 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00352
- 38Perepelkina, O., Vorobeva, V., Melnikova, O., Arina, G., & Nikolaeva, V. (2018). Artificial hand illusions dynamics: Onset and fading of static rubber and virtual moving hand illusions. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 65, 216–227. 10.1016/j.concog.2018.09.005
- 39Petkova, V. I., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008). If I were you: perceptual illusion of body swapping. PloS One, 3(12), Article e3832. 10.1371/journal.pone.0003832
- 40Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 74–80. 10.5709/acp-0133-x
- 41Pfister, R., Klaffehn, A. L., Kalckert, A., Kunde, W., & Dignath, D. (2021). How to lose a hand: Sensory updating drives disembodiment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–7. 10.3758/s13423-020-01854-0
- 42Pittenger, D. J., Pavlik, W. B., Flora, S. R., & Kontos, J. (1988). Analysis of the partial reinforcement extinction effect in humans as a function of sequence of reinforcement schedules. The American Journal of Psychology, 101(3), 371–382. 10.2307/1423085
- 43Rescorla, R. A. (1987). A Pavlovian analysis of goal-directed behavior. American Psychologist, 42(2), 119–129. 10.1037/0003-066X.42.2.119
- 44Rescorla, R. A. (1999). Within-subject partial reinforcement extinction effect in autoshaping. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52b(1), 75–87. 10.1080/713932693
- 45Riemer, M., Fuchs, X., Bublatzky, F., Kleinböhl, D., Hölzl, R., & Trojan, J. (2014). The rubber hand illusion depends on a congruent mapping between real and artificial fingers. Acta Psychologica, 152, 34–41. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.012
- 46Riemer, M., Trojan, J., Beauchamp, M., & Fuchs, X. (2019). The rubber hand universe: On the impact of methodological differences in the rubber hand illusion. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 104, 268–280. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.07.008
- 47Rognini, G., Petrini, F. M., Raspopovic, S., Valle, G., Granata, G., Strauss, I., Solcà, M., Bello-Ruiz, J., Herbelin, B., Mange, R., D’Anna, E., Di Iorio, R., Di Pino, G., Andreu, D., Guiraud, D., Stieglitz, T., Rossini, P. M., Serino, A., Micera, S., & Blanke, O. (2019). Multisensory bionic limb to achieve prosthesis embodiment and reduce distorted phantom limb perceptions. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 90(7), 833–836. 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318570
- 48Rosén, B., Ehrsson, H. H., Antfolk, C., Cipriani, C., Sebelius, F., & Lundborg, G. (2009). Referral of sensation to an advanced humanoid robotic hand prosthesis. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery, 43(5), 260–266. 10.3109/02844310903113107
- 49Salminger, S., Stino, H., Pichler, L. H., Gstoettner, C., Sturma, A., Mayer, J. A., Szivak, M., & Aszmann, O. C. (2022). Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb amputees – have innovations had an impact on device acceptance? Disability and rehabilitation, 44(14), 3708–3713. 10.1080/09638288.2020.1866684
- 50Samad, M., Chung, A. J., & Shams, L. (2015). Perception of body ownership is driven by Bayesian sensory inference. PloS One, 10(2), Article e0117178. 10.1371/journal.pone.0117178
- 51Segers, E., Beckers, T., Geurts, H., Claes, L., Danckaerts, M., & van der Oord, S. (2018). Working memory and reinforcement schedule jointly determine reinforcement learning in children: Potential implications for behavioral parent training. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 394. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00394
- 52Shimada, S., Fukuda, K., & Hiraki, K. (2009). Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback. PloS One, 4(7), Article e6185. 10.1371/journal.pone.0006185
- 53Shimada, S., Suzuki, T., Yoda, N., & Hayashi, T. (2014). Relationship between sensitivity to visuotactile temporal discrepancy and the rubber hand illusion. Neuroscience Research, 85, 33–38. 10.1016/j.neures.2014.04.009
- 54Sivasubramaniam, A. K., Ng, J., Chan, H., Yang, J. K. Y., & Kalckert, A. (2022). The super-stroker—An open-source tool to induce the rubber hand illusion. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(4), 356–365. 10.1037/cns0000284
- 55Song, H., Israel, E. A., Gutierrez-Arango, S., Teng, A. C., Srinivasan, S. S., Freed, L. E., & Herr, H. M. (2022). Agonist-antagonist muscle strain in the residual limb preserves motor control and perception after amputation. Communications Medicine, 2, Article 97. 10.1038/s43856-022-00162-z
- 56Srinivasan, S. S., Carty, M. J., Calvaresi, P. W., Clites, T. R., Maimon, B. E., Taylor, C. R., Zorzos, A. N., & Herr, H. (2017). On prosthetic control: A regenerative agonist-antagonist myoneural interface. Science Robotics, 2(6), Article eaan2971. 10.1126/scirobotics.aan2971
- 57Stein, B. E., & Stanford, T. R. (2008). Multisensory integration: Current issues from the perspective of the single neuron. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(4), 255–266. 10.1038/nrn2331
- 58Thrailkill, E. A. (2023). Partial reinforcement extinction and omission effects in the elimination and recovery of discriminated operant behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 49(3), 194–207. 10.1037/xan0000354
- 59Tsakiris, 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. Experimental Brain Research, 204(3), 343–352. 10.1007/s00221-009-2039-3
- 60Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2005). The Rubber Hand Illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 80–91. 10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80
- 61Verschoor, S. A., & Hommel, B. (2017). Self-by-doing: The role of action for self-acquisition. Social Cognition, 35(2), 127–145. 10.1521/soco.2017.35.2.127
- 62Ward, J., Mensah, A., & Jünemann, K. (2015). The rubber hand illusion depends on the tactile congruency of the observed and felt touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(5), 1203–1208. 10.1037/xhp0000088