Intrinsic neural activity predisposes susceptibility to a body illusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Susceptibility to the rubber hand illusion (RHI) varies. Thus far, however, there is no consensus as regards how to explain this variation. Previous studies, focused on the role of multisensory integration, have searched for neural correlates of the illusion. Those studies, however, have failed to identify a sufficient set of functionally specific neural correlates. An alternative explanation of the illusion is that it results from demand characteristics, chiefly variability in the disposition to respond to imaginative suggestion: the degree to which intrinsic neural activity allows for a blurring of boundaries between self and external objects. Some evidence suggests that frontal α power is one means of tracking neural instantiations of self; therefore, we hypothesized that the higher the frontal α power during eyes-closed resting state, the more stable the self. As a corollary, we infer that the more stable the self, the less susceptible are participants to a blurring of boundaries—to feeling that the rubber hand belongs to them. Indeed, we found that frontal α amplitude oscillations negatively correlate with susceptibility. Moreover, since α and δ oscillations seem to be associated in pathological states that allow for a blurring of boundaries between self and external objects, we conjectured that the high frontal α power observed in low-RHI participants is modulated by δ frequency oscillations. Indeed, we found this to be the case. Based on our findings we propose that the two explanatory frameworks might be complementary: that is, the neural correlates of multisensory integration might be necessary for the RHI, but a sufficient explanation requires investigation of variable intrinsic neural activity that acts to modulate how the brain responds to incompatible sensory stimuli. Highlights ~Intrinsic frontal α power negatively correlates with susceptibility to the RHI. ~Intrinsic α power modulated by δ oscillations varies with susceptibility to the RHI. ~Sufficient explanation of RHI requires understanding of intrinsic neural dispositions that regulate the boundary between self and the external world.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".