Self-concept clarity and interoceptive updating in the rubber-hand illusion: A double replication study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction error minimization and embodied cognition theorists posit that abstract self-representations are predicated on models of the self as an embodied agent. While the view of continuity between conceptual and bodily self is common to several frameworks in psychology and cognitive science, empirical tests of this relationship are scant. However, a recent study by Krol et al., (see record 2020-26839-011) found that people low in self-concept clarity (SCC) were more vulnerable to the rubber-hand illusion-in particular, in the asynchronous stroking condition, where the illusion is unwarranted. This study provides preliminary evidence for an association between self-concept strength and vulnerability to illusions regarding the bodily self. Here we sought to replicate this finding in an existing study that assessed SCC and the rubber-hand illusion. Using linear mixed-effects modelling, we found that lower SCC was again associated with greater embodiment of the rubber hand in the asynchronous condition; moreover, we also observed this effect in the synchronous stroking condition, providing additional evidence for the role of SCC in vulnerability to bodily illusions. We discuss the implications of this finding for theories in social cognitive neuroscience. Finally, as the study we drew upon to test the replication effect involved the administration of intranasal oxytocin, we also took this opportunity to replicate a previously observed effect of oxytocin on embodiment of the rubber hand; this effect, however, did not replicate, although methodological difference may have played a role. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".