“I can't tell whether it's my hand”: a pilot study of the neurophenomenology of body representation during the rubber hand illusion in trauma-related disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early traumatic experiences are thought to be causal factors in the development of trauma-related dissociative experiences, including depersonalization and derealization. The rubber hand illusion (RHI), a well-known paradigm that measures multi-sensorial integration of a rubber hand into one's own body representation, has been used to investigate alterations in the experience of body ownership and of body representation. Critically, however, it has never been studied in individuals with trauma-related disorders. OBJECTIVE: To investigate body representation distortions occurring in trauma-related disorders in response to the RHI. METHOD: The RHI was administered to three individuals with the dissociative subtype of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and subjective, behavioral, cardiovascular and skin conductance responses were recorded. RESULTS: Participants' subjective experiences of the RHI were differentiated and complex. The illusion was induced following both synchronous and asynchronous brushing and variably evoked subjective distress, depersonalization and derealization experiences, tonic immobility, increased physiological arousal and flashbacks. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings point towards the RHI as a strong provocation stimulus that elicits individual patterns of symptom presentation, including experiences of distress and dissociation, in individuals with trauma-related disorders, including the dissociative subtype of PTSD. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ARTICLE: The rubber hand illusion (RHI) elicits distress, tonic immobility, depersonalization and derealization, and autonomic responses in individuals with trauma-related disorders, including the dissociative subtype of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RHI effects related to body misrepresentation may trigger altered experiences related to body ownership. The RHI represents a promising paradigm for studying the neurophenomenology of body distortion in individuals experiencing trauma-related altered states of consciousness (TRASC).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".