Movement and the Rubber Hand Illusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a participant views a rubber hand being stroked by a paintbrush while his/her real hand is unseen and similarly stroked by another paintbrush, a misperception known as the rubber hand illusion occurs whereby tactile sensations are falsely referred to the non-body part. The purpose of the current study was to further examine the rubber hand illusion with conditions of movement. An apparatus was devised that would synchronise visual with felt movement in an active condition and a passive condition. An asynchronous condition was included as a control in which visual and felt movement were purposely disconnected. The three movement conditions (active, passive, and asynchronous) were statistically compared in order to assess our prediction that synchronous conditions of movement (especially active) would generate more reports of the illusion. The performance of the movement conditions was evaluated against a visual-tactile condition, which is a known contributor to the rubber hand illusion. Not only significantly more robust reports of the illusion were obtained when visual movement and felt movement were synchronised but there was also a trend toward stronger reports in the active condition rather than the passive condition. Interestingly, the pattern of results differed according to the particular question on the self-report.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".