Toggle search
Toggle menu
5.1K
5.9K
229
48K
VR & AR Wiki
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Rubber hand illusion

From VR & AR Wiki
More actions

The rubber hand illusion (RHI) is a perceptual illusion in which a person whose real hand is hidden from view comes to feel that a visible artificial hand is part of their own body. In the classic version, the hidden real hand and a life-sized rubber hand in plain view are stroked with paintbrushes at the same time. After a period of stroking many participants report feeling the touch where they see the rubber hand being touched, and when asked to indicate where their hidden hand is they tend to misjudge its position toward the rubber hand.[1] Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen reported the effect in Nature in 1998 and described it as revealing "a three-way interaction between vision, touch and proprioception".[1]

The RHI became a widely used paradigm for studying the sense of body ownership, and the many differences in how it is run have produced a large literature with many contradictory findings.[2] In virtual reality the rubber hand can be replaced by a computer-generated one. This version, often called the virtual hand illusion (VHI), was demonstrated with projected and head-mounted display setups between 2006 and 2010,[3][4][5] and it underlies much of the research on how users come to experience avatars as their own bodies (see Sense of embodiment).[6]

Reviewed 6 October 2026. Every cited paper's authors, title, venue, volume, pages and date checked against Crossref; claims checked against the Botvinick and Cohen 1998 full text, the full texts of Ehrsson et al. 2022, Kilteni et al. 2015 and Ma and Hommel 2013, and the abstracts of the other cited studies. About review dates.

How it works

In the standard procedure the participant sits with one arm resting on a table. A screen hides that arm, and a rubber hand is placed in view in an anatomically congruent position.[7] The experimenter strokes the rubber hand and the hidden real hand with two brushes, synchronizing the strokes as closely as possible, while the participant watches the rubber hand.[1] The touches are applied at the same time and in the same place on both hands.[8] The usual control condition is asynchronous stroking, in which the two hands are brushed out of step; this abolishes or clearly reduces the illusion.[9]

Botvinick and Cohen hypothesized that the illusion involves a constraint-satisfaction process between vision, touch and proprioception, and a connectionist model they described suggested that its reconciliation of the seen and felt touches relies on a distortion of position sense.[1] Later accounts treat the RHI as a product of multisensory integration that combines bottom-up sensory correlations with top-down knowledge of the body.[9][10]

Measures

Researchers use several kinds of evidence to decide whether the illusion has occurred:

Measure What it records Example studies
Questionnaire Agreement with statements such as "I felt as if the rubber hand were my hand", usually rated on a Likert-type scale Botvinick and Cohen 1998;[1] Longo et al. 2008[11]
Proprioceptive drift Shift in the judged position of the hidden hand toward the rubber hand, compared with a judgment made before stimulation Botvinick and Cohen 1998;[1] Tsakiris and Haggard 2005[10]
Skin conductance response Physiological arousal when the rubber hand is threatened or "injured" Armel and Ramachandran 2003[12]
Brain imaging Activity in multisensory and threat-related brain areas during the illusion Ehrsson et al. 2004;[13] Ehrsson et al. 2007[14]
Skin temperature Change in the temperature of the real hand during the illusion (contested; see below) Moseley et al. 2008[15]

A psychometric study by Matthew Longo and colleagues asked participants to rate 27 statements about their experience after synchronous or asynchronous stroking. A principal components analysis found four main components (embodiment of the rubber hand, loss of one's own hand, movement, and affect), and the embodiment component split further into ownership, location and agency.[11] A 2021 reanalysis of three public datasets by Reader, Trifonova and Ehrsson found that referral of touch (feeling the touch on the rubber hand) and ownership are related, but referral of touch is reported more strongly and more often, so pooling the two kinds of statements can inflate the number of participants counted as experiencing the illusion.[7]

Proprioceptive drift and the feeling of ownership do not always agree. Rohde, Di Luca and Ernst used robot arms to stroke the hands and measured perceived finger position repeatedly during stimulation. With frequent measurements, drift appeared in the asynchronous and vision-only control conditions as well as in the synchronous condition, while questionnaire ratings showed ownership only after synchronous stroking. The authors concluded that drift and ownership rely on different integration mechanisms, and that ownership cannot be inferred from drift alone.[16]

History

Original report

Botvinick and Cohen, of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and the Department of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, published the illusion as a one-page piece of scientific correspondence in the 19 February 1998 issue of Nature. In their first experiment, ten subjects watched a life-sized rubber model of a left hand and arm while it and their hidden left hand were brushed. After ten minutes they answered an open-ended question and rated nine statements on a seven-step scale. The statements describing the predicted effects, such as feeling the touch where the rubber hand was touched and feeling the rubber hand as one's own, drew significantly affirmative responses. Eight of the ten subjects used terms of ownership in their free descriptions without being prompted.[1]

A second experiment exposed subjects to the same conditions for a 30-minute viewing period. Before and after, subjects made three reaches with their eyes closed, sliding the right index finger under the table until they judged it to be aligned with the left index finger. After the illusion, reaches were displaced toward the rubber hand, and the size of the displacement increased with the reported duration of the illusion. A control group that received slightly asynchronous brushing reported the illusion for a mean of 7 percent of the exposure period, against 42 percent for the synchronous group, and their reaches moved a mean of 13 mm away from the rubber hand instead of 23 mm toward it.[1] The authors placed the illusion among earlier intersensory bias effects (their references go back to a 1937 study by Tastevin) and cited V. S. Ramachandran's mirror experiments with phantom limb patients as closely related work.[1]

Physiological and brain evidence

In 2003 Carrie Armel and V. S. Ramachandran showed that subjects also referred touch to a tabletop when the table and their hidden hand were tapped and stroked in synchrony. When the table or rubber hand was then "injured", subjects showed a strong skin conductance response although nothing was done to the real hand. The illusion was much weaker when the real hand was visible during stroking or when the touches were asynchronous.[12]

Henrik Ehrsson, Charles Spence and Richard Passingham used functional magnetic resonance imaging in 2004 and found that activity in the premotor cortex reflected the feeling of ownership of the rubber hand, which they took as evidence that multisensory integration in premotor cortex supports bodily self-attribution.[13] A 2005 follow-up introduced a "somatic" version for blindfolded participants: the experimenter moved the participant's left index finger to touch the rubber hand while touching the participant's real right hand at the same moment. After approximately 9.7 seconds this produced an illusion of touching one's own hand, and the strength of the illusion correlated with activity in premotor cortex and the cerebellum.[17] In 2007 Ehrsson and colleagues reported that threatening a rubber hand that participants felt as their own produced activity in the insula and anterior cingulate cortex, areas linked to anxiety and interoceptive awareness, at a level similar to threats to the real hand; the stronger the ownership, the stronger the response.[14]

Animal versions

Analogues of the illusion have been reported in other species. Wada and colleagues stroked the real tails of mice together with rubber tails; after synchronous stroking, mice responded as if their own tails were touched when the rubber tail was grasped, and they did so significantly less often after asynchronous stroking.[18] A 2019 study in macaque monkeys used a video-based reaching task; like humans, the monkeys were more likely to treat an external object as part of themselves when its visual dynamics and shape were closer to proprioceptive signals, and neural signals in premotor cortex reflected the strength of the illusion.[19]

Conditions and limits

Experiments have mapped which conditions the illusion needs. The main findings:

Factor Finding Source
Timing Illusion effects were significantly greater when the delay between seen and felt touch was less than 300 ms than with longer delays; drift followed the same pattern Shimada, Fukuda and Hiraki 2009[20]
Distance With the rubber hand placed 17.5 to 67.5 cm from the real hand, ratings were strongest at the closest positions and decayed significantly beyond 30 cm Lloyd 2007[21]
Body knowledge Visuotactile correlation is necessary but not sufficient; the content of the illusion is modulated by top-down representations of one's own body Tsakiris and Haggard 2005[10]
Visibility of the real hand The illusion was much less vivid when the real hand was visible during stroking Armel and Ramachandran 2003[12]
Movement instead of touch Moving the rubber hand's finger with one's own finger induced ownership; asynchrony removed both ownership and agency, passive movement removed agency but left ownership, and an incongruent hand position reduced ownership but not agency Kalckert and Ehrsson 2012[22]
Mode of induction Illusions from visuotactile stroking, active movement and passive movement were equally strong Kalckert and Ehrsson 2014[23]
Touch at all A large percentage of participants experienced the illusion with no tactile stimulation; synchronous stroking strengthened it Samad, Chung and Shams 2015[24]

Kilteni, Maselli, Kording and Slater reviewed these spatial, temporal and semantic constraints across body ownership illusions in 2015. They concluded that spatiotemporal congruence between seen and felt stimulation is a sufficient condition for inducing these illusions, but that a realistic fake body seen in the same place as the real one can produce ownership even with asynchronous touch.[25]

Explanations and debates

Models of body ownership

Manos Tsakiris proposed a neurocognitive model in 2010 in which body ownership arises from an interaction between current multisensory input and internal models of the body. A stored body model first tests whether an object could be part of the body, on-line postural representations then modulate visuotactile integration, and the resulting referral of touch gives rise to the feeling of ownership. He assigned these steps to a network including the right temporoparietal junction, secondary somatosensory cortex, posterior parietal and ventral premotor cortices, and the right posterior insula.[26]

Computational accounts frame the illusion as Bayesian causal inference: the brain judges whether the seen and felt signals share a common cause and, if so, attributes the seen hand to the body. Samad, Chung and Shams applied this model to visual, proprioceptive and tactile signals; it reproduced the RHI and predicted that the illusion could occur without touch, which their experiments confirmed.[24] Kilteni and colleagues proposed the same framework for body ownership illusions generally, combining multisensory, sensorimotor and semantic information.[25]

Suggestion and demand characteristics

In 2020 Lush and colleagues reported, in samples of 156, 404 and 353 participants, substantial relationships between hypnotisability and measures of the RHI and of mirror-touch synaesthesia. They argued that participants' control of their own experience to meet expectations arising from the task can account for experiential change in such experiments.[27] Ehrsson, Fotopoulou, Radziun, Longo and Tsakiris responded in 2022. Reanalyzing the 353-participant dataset with the synchronous condition contrasted against the asynchronous control, as is standard in the field, they found no significant relationship between hypnotic suggestibility and either illusion ratings or proprioceptive drift. They concluded that the results fit the view of the RHI as a perceptual illusion driven mainly by multisensory mechanisms.[9]

Contested downstream effects

Some reported consequences of the illusion have not replicated consistently. Moseley and colleagues reported in 2008, across six experiments, that the skin temperature of the real hand fell when participants took ownership of the rubber hand, and that the effect was specific to that limb.[15] In 2017 de Haan and colleagues reported that five replication attempts in their lab, totaling 167 participants, showed no reliable cooling of the real hand.[28] A systematic review and meta-analysis by Coppi, Jensen and Ehrsson, published online in May 2026, found mixed and conflicting evidence on whether the RHI changes pain in healthy participants; across 22 within-subject effect sizes the pooled effect was null (Hedges' g = 0.036).[8] Riemer and colleagues argued in 2019 that many contradictory RHI findings can be reconciled once differences in setup, induction method, measurement and analysis are taken into account.[2]

Virtual hand illusion

A study that its authors described as the first to investigate the RHI under mediated conditions was published in 2006 in Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments by Wijnand IJsselsteijn, Yvonne de Kort and Antal Haans. They compared the original unmediated setup with a VR condition, in which both the fake hand and its stimulation were projected onto the table, and a mixed reality condition, in which the hand was projected but the stroking was real. The unmediated condition produced the strongest illusion by both self-report and drift. The VR condition gave a more convincing subjective illusion than the mixed reality condition, with no difference in drift between the two mediated conditions. The authors discussed the result in relation to telepresence.[3]

Mel Slater, Perez-Marcos, Ehrsson and Maria Sanchez-Vives showed in 2008 that a purely virtual arm could be felt as one's own. Taps on the hidden real right hand were synchronized with taps seen on an aligned 3D stereo virtual arm projecting from the shoulder. Twenty-one male participants showed ownership by questionnaire and proprioceptive drift, while a separate group of 20 who received asynchronous tapping did not experience the illusion. The authors wrote that the result opened the possibility that an entire virtual body could be felt as one's own in future VR applications or online games.[4] In 2010 Sanchez-Vives and colleagues induced the illusion without any touch: a data glove transmitted finger positions to a projected virtual hand, and synchronous movement produced higher ownership ratings than asynchronous movement, with a median proprioceptive displacement difference of 3.5 cm between the two conditions.[29]

Ye Yuan and Anthony Steed asked at IEEE VR 2010 whether a similar illusion arises naturally in head-mounted display VR. Participants who saw a tracked virtual body showed responses to threats similar to those in rubber hand experiments; the responses disappeared when the virtual body was replaced with an abstract cursor representing the hand, and they remained stable under some gradual forced distortion of tracker space, so that proprioceptive and visual information did not match.[5] In the threat event, a virtual lamp fell on the virtual hand, and the hand condition produced a larger skin conductance increase than a condition in which the hand was replaced by an arrow.[30] Ke Ma and Bernhard Hommel replicated the virtual hand illusion in 2013 with a data glove, an orientation tracker and a virtual hand on a monitor. Ownership was stronger with synchronous movement, but skin conductance responses to a virtual knife were independent of synchrony, while responses to a ball hitting the hand were larger in the synchronous condition. They concluded that perceived ownership and affective responses to threat can be dissociated.[30]

Later work compared virtual and physical versions directly. In a 2021 EEG study with a head-mounted display, Kanayama, Hara and Kimura found statistically significant oscillatory differences between congruent and incongruent conditions in the real setting, consistent with earlier studies, but in VR only in the late theta band, and suggested that the VR setting itself altered sensory integration.[31] Kocur and colleagues ran the RHI with 24 participants both in the real world and in VR and reported comparable illusion effects in the two environments, although proprioceptive drift and temperature differences varied between settings regardless of the illusion.[6]

Applications

Avatar and hand design

The virtual hand illusion is used to evaluate how virtual hands should look. Lorraine Lin and Sophie Jörg gave participants controllable hands with six distinct appearances and found that the illusion could be created with any model for some participants, but was weakest for a non-anthropomorphic block and strongest for a realistic human hand in direct comparison; responses varied widely between participants.[32] In a 2017 CHI study, Valentin Schwind and colleagues tested six hand styles with 14 female and 14 male participants; women reported lower presence when using male avatar hands, and men reported lower presence with non-human hands.[33] Related topics are covered under Hand tracking, Presence and Proteus effect.

Haptic feedback

The illusion is also used to test haptic devices. Salagean and colleagues used ultrasonic mid-air haptic stimulation with 50 participants who watched a virtual hand being stroked by a feather. Synchronous stimulation produced a stronger illusion than asynchronous stimulation, and the illusion was stronger on the palm than on the back of the hand; perceived immersion was not related to ownership itself but was enhanced by synchronous stimulation.[34]

Prosthetics and clinical research

Ehrsson and colleagues reported in 2008 that upper limb amputees could be made to feel a rubber hand as their own by touching the stump, out of view, together with the index finger of a rubber hand placed 26 cm medial to the stump. Questionnaires, misreaching in a pointing task, and skin conductance responses when the hand was threatened supported the illusion, and the authors presented it as a way to transfer touch sensations to a prosthetic limb.[35] Marasco and colleagues extended the approach in 2011 with two targeted reinnervation amputees, coupling a pressure sensor on a prosthetic hand through a robotic stimulator to redirected sensory nerves; subjective and physiological measures indicated a shift toward embodiment of the prosthesis.[36]

In pain research, Käthner, Bader and Pauli used an embodied virtual hand co-located with the real one in immersive VR while participants received heat stimuli on the forearm. Blue light suggesting cold virtual water reduced pain intensity and unpleasantness, and red light suggesting warm water increased them.[37] The 2026 meta-analysis cited above, however, found no consistent effect of the classic RHI itself on pain in healthy participants.[8] Clinical uses of virtual bodies are covered under Virtual reality therapy.

Relationship to full-body illusions

The same multisensory principles were later applied to the whole body. Kilteni and colleagues reviewed body ownership illusions that extend the method to fake and virtual bodies, including full-body illusions toward a mannequin seen from a first-person perspective when the real and fake abdomen were touched synchronously.[25] These whole-body and avatar illusions form a large part of the research on the sense of embodiment.

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Matthew Botvinick, Jonathan Cohen (1998-02-19). "Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see". Nature, vol. 391, no. 6669, p. 756. https://doi.org/10.1038/35784. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Martin Riemer, Jörg Trojan, Marta Beauchamp, Xaver Fuchs (2019). "The rubber hand universe: On the impact of methodological differences in the rubber hand illusion". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 104, pp. 268-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.07.008. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn, Yvonne A. W. de Kort, Antal Haans (2006-08). "Is This My Hand I See Before Me? The Rubber Hand Illusion in Reality, Virtual Reality, and Mixed Reality". Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 455-464. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.15.4.455. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Mel Slater, D. Perez-Marcos, H. Henrik Ehrsson, Maria V. Sanchez-Vives (2008-08-20). "Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 2, article 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.006.2008. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Ye Yuan, Anthony Steed (2010-03). "Is the rubber hand illusion induced by immersive virtual reality?". 2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR), pp. 95-102. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2010.5444807. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Martin Kocur, Alexander Kalus, Johanna Bogon, Niels Henze, Christian Wolff, Valentin Schwind (2022-11-29). "The Rubber Hand Illusion in Virtual Reality and the Real World - Comparable but Different". Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST '22), pp. 1-12. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3562939.3565614. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Arran T. Reader, Victoria S. Trifonova, H. Henrik Ehrsson (2021-02-11). "The Relationship Between Referral of Touch and the Feeling of Ownership in the Rubber Hand Illusion". Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, article 629590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629590. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Sara Coppi, Karin B. Jensen, H. Henrik Ehrsson (2026-05-22). "Pain perception is not modulated by the rubber hand illusion in healthy participants: Insights from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 187, article 106770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2026.106770. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 H. Henrik Ehrsson, Aikaterini Fotopoulou, Dominika Radziun, Matthew R. Longo, Manos Tsakiris (2022-01-28). "No specific relationship between hypnotic suggestibility and the rubber hand illusion". Nature Communications, vol. 13, article 564. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28177-z. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Manos Tsakiris, Patrick Haggard (2005-02). "The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Matthew R. Longo, Friederike Schüür, Marjolein P. M. Kammers, Manos Tsakiris, Patrick Haggard (2008-06). "What is embodiment? A psychometric approach". Cognition, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 978-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.004. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 K. Carrie Armel, V. S. Ramachandran (2003-07). "Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 270, no. 1523, pp. 1499-1506. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2364. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 H. Henrik Ehrsson, Charles Spence, Richard E. Passingham (2004). "That's my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb". Science, vol. 305, no. 5685, pp. 875-877. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097011. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 H. Henrik Ehrsson, Katja Wiech, Nikolaus Weiskopf, Raymond J. Dolan, Richard E. Passingham (2007-06). "Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, no. 23, pp. 9828-9833. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610011104. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 G. Lorimer Moseley, Nick Olthof, Annemeike Venema, Sanneke Don, Marijke Wijers, Alberto Gallace, Charles Spence (2008-09). "Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 105, no. 35, pp. 13169-13173. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803768105. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  16. ↑ Marieke Rohde, Massimiliano Di Luca, Marc O. Ernst (2011-06-28). "The Rubber Hand Illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand". PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 6, e21659. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021659. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  17. ↑ H. Henrik Ehrsson, Nicholas P. Holmes, Richard E. Passingham (2005-11). "Touching a rubber hand: feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas". The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 25, no. 45, pp. 10564-10573. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0800-05.2005. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  18. ↑ Makoto Wada, Kouji Takano, Hiroki Ora, Masakazu Ide, Kenji Kansaku (2016-10). "The Rubber Tail Illusion as Evidence of Body Ownership in Mice". The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 36, no. 43, pp. 11133-11137. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3006-15.2016. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  19. ↑ Wen Fang, Junru Li, Guangyao Qi, Shenghao Li, Mariano Sigman, Liping Wang (2019-10). "Statistical inference of body representation in the macaque brain". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 40, pp. 20151-20157. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902334116. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  20. ↑ Sotaro Shimada, Kensuke Fukuda, Kazuo Hiraki (2009-07-09). "Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback". PLoS ONE, vol. 4, no. 7, e6185. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006185. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  21. ↑ Donna M. Lloyd (2007-06). "Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand". Brain and Cognition, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 104-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2006.09.013. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  22. ↑ Andreas Kalckert, H. Henrik Ehrsson (2012-03-14). "Moving a Rubber Hand that Feels Like Your Own: A Dissociation of Ownership and Agency". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 6, article 40. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  23. ↑ Andreas Kalckert, H. Henrik Ehrsson (2014-05). "The moving rubber hand illusion revisited: comparing movements and visuotactile stimulation to induce illusory ownership". Consciousness and Cognition, vol. 26, pp. 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.003. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Majed Samad, Albert Jin Chung, Ladan Shams (2015-02-06). "Perception of body ownership is driven by Bayesian sensory inference". PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 2, e0117178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117178. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Konstantina Kilteni, Antonella Maselli, Konrad P. Kording, Mel Slater (2015-03-24). "Over my fake body: body ownership illusions for studying the multisensory basis of own-body perception". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 9, article 141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00141. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  26. ↑ Manos Tsakiris (2010-02). "My body in the brain: a neurocognitive model of body-ownership". Neuropsychologia, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 703-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.034. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  27. ↑ P. Lush, V. Botan, R. B. Scott, A. K. Seth, J. Ward, Z. Dienes (2020-09-25). "Trait phenomenological control predicts experience of mirror synaesthesia and the rubber hand illusion". Nature Communications, vol. 11, article 4853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18591-6. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  28. ↑ Alyanne M. de Haan, Haike E. Van Stralen, Miranda Smit, Anouk Keizer, Stefan Van der Stigchel, H. Chris Dijkerman (2017-09). "No consistent cooling of the real hand in the rubber hand illusion". Acta Psychologica, vol. 179, pp. 68-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.07.003. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  29. ↑ Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, Bernhard Spanlang, Antonio Frisoli, Massimo Bergamasco, Mel Slater (2010-04-29). "Virtual hand illusion induced by visuomotor correlations". PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 4, e10381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010381. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Ke Ma, Bernhard Hommel (2013-09-06). "The virtual-hand illusion: effects of impact and threat on perceived ownership and affective resonance". Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 4, article 604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00604. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  31. ↑ Noriaki Kanayama, Masayuki Hara, Kenta Kimura (2021-01-14). "Virtual reality alters cortical oscillations related to visuo-tactile integration during rubber hand illusion". Scientific Reports, vol. 11, article 1436. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80807-y. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  32. ↑ Lorraine Lin, Sophie Jörg (2016-07-22). "Need a Hand? How Appearance Affects the Virtual Hand Illusion". Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (SAP '16), pp. 69-76. ACM. doi:10.1145/2931002.2931006. https://www.lorrainelin.com/needahand. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  33. ↑ Valentin Schwind, Pascal Knierim, Cagri Tasci, Patrick Franczak, Nico Haas, Niels Henze (2017-05-02). ""These are not my hands!": Effect of Gender on the Perception of Avatar Hands in Virtual Reality". Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1577-1582. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025602. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  34. ↑ Anca Salagean, Jacob Hadnett-Hunter, Daniel J. Finnegan, Alexandra A. de Sousa, Michael J. Proulx (2022-01-06). "A Virtual Reality Application of the Rubber Hand Illusion Induced by Ultrasonic Mid-air Haptic Stimulation". ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487563. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  35. ↑ H. H. Ehrsson, B. Rosén, A. Stockselius, C. Ragnö, P. Köhler, G. Lundborg (2008-12). "Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own". Brain, vol. 131, no. 12, pp. 3443-3452. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn297. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  36. ↑ Paul D. Marasco, Keehoon Kim, James Edward Colgate, Michael A. Peshkin, Todd A. Kuiken (2011-03). "Robotic touch shifts perception of embodiment to a prosthesis in targeted reinnervation amputees". Brain, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 747-758. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awq361. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
  37. ↑ Ivo Käthner, Thomas Bader, Paul Pauli (2019-12-13). "Heat pain modulation with virtual water during a virtual hand illusion". Scientific Reports, vol. 9, article 19137. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55407-0. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
Retrieved from "https://vrarwiki.com/index.php?title=Rubber_hand_illusion&oldid=47488"