Hypothesis awareness confounds asynchronous control conditions in indirect measures of the rubber hand illusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reports of changes in experiences of body location and ownership following synchronous tactile and visual stimulation of fake and real hands (rubber hand (RH) effects) are widely attributed to multisensory integration mechanisms. However, existing control methods for subjective report measures (asynchronous stroking and control statements) are confounded by participant hypothesis awareness; the report may reflect response to demand characteristics. Subjective report is often accompanied by indirect (also called ‘objective’ or ‘implicit’) measures. Here, we report tests of expectancies for synchronous ‘illusion’ and asynchronous ‘control’ conditions across two pre-registered studies ( n = 140 and n = 45) for two indirect measures: proprioceptive drift (a change in perceived hand location) and skin conductance response (a measure of physiological arousal). Expectancies for synchronous condition measures were greater than for asynchronous conditions in both studies. Differences between synchronous and asynchronous control condition measures are therefore confounded by hypothesis awareness. This means indirect measures of RH effects may reflect compliance, bias and phenomenological control in response to demand characteristics, just as for subjective measures. Valid control measures are required to support claims of a role of multisensory integration for both direct and indirect measures of RH effects.
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 | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".