The disappearing limb trick and the role of sensory suggestibility in illusion experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body ownership (the feeling that my body belongs to me) can be easily perturbed in healthy individuals by inducing bodily illusions. For example, dis-integrating vision, touch, and proprioception can produce the feeling that your limb is 'lost', such as in "the disappearing hand trick" (DHT). Following this illusion, participants report that the hand feels as though it is no longer part of the body, that it does not belong to them anymore, and that they do not know its location. However, it remains unknown whether this illusion can also be applied to the feet. Lower body ownership is disturbed in some populations, such as in Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), where people have a longstanding desire to paralyze or amputate a (disowned) part of their body (i.e. usually the legs), thus exploring the efficacy and utility of lower body illusions might be useful for populations like such. In the current study, we induced the disappearing hand and foot trick in two groups of healthy adults. As the illusion crucially relies on illusory sensory feedback, we also explored if one's level of sensory suggestibility influenced the experience of the illusion. Questionnaire data showed that the DHT can be applied to the feet, as there was no difference in experience between those who experienced the illusion for the hands and those who experienced the illusion for the feet. Moreover, one's level of sensory suggestibility correlated positively with the experience of illusory sensations (like warmth, numbness, or the presence of an extra limb) following the illusion. We discuss the implications of bodily illusions in clinical populations and emphasize the critical role that sensory signals (even illusory) play in creating the bodily experience.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".