Toggle search
Toggle menu
4.9K
5.5K
229
46.8K
VR & AR Wiki
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Sense of embodiment

From VR & AR Wiki
More actions

The sense of embodiment (SoE) is the set of sensations that arise from being inside, having and controlling a body. In virtual reality research the term refers to the extent to which a user experiences a virtual body, usually an avatar seen from a first-person viewpoint, as if it were their own biological body. Konstantina Kilteni, Raphaela Groten and Mel Slater proposed a working definition of the concept in a 2012 paper in Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, where they split it into three subcomponents: the sense of self-location, the sense of agency and the sense of body ownership.[1]

The research grew out of the rubber hand illusion, reported by Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen in 1998, in which people come to feel touch on a visible rubber hand while their own hand is hidden.[2] Head-mounted displays and body tracking let researchers replace the whole body with a computer-generated one and manipulate its structure, shape and size in a controlled way that would hardly be possible in physical reality.[1] Mar Gonzalez-Franco and Tabitha Peck note that the illusion is fairly robust and can be produced even when the avatar differs from the user in age, size, gender or race.[3] Experiments since the late 2000s have shown that people can feel ownership over such virtual bodies and that the kind of body can change perception, attitudes and behavior. A 2023 review notes that changes in embodiment can influence how users interact with a virtual environment, and that the ideal way to measure it has yet to be identified.[4]

Reviewed 4 October 2026. Claims checked against the cited papers (Kilteni et al. 2012 full text, abstracts or full texts and DOI metadata of the other studies) and the TechCrunch, UploadVR and Meta developer pages. About review dates.

Definition

Kilteni, Groten and Slater adopted the term "sense of embodiment" because "embodiment" was being used with different meanings in philosophy, cognitive neuroscience and robotics. Building on a 2011 definition by de Vignemont, they proposed: "SoE toward a body B is the sense that emerges when B's properties are processed as if they were the properties of one's own biological body." In their usage a "body" can be any object in a virtual environment, not only a human figure.[1]

They treat the sense of embodiment as a matter of degree. Each subcomponent can vary continuously from none to a maximum, a person experiences some embodiment toward a body if at least one of the three senses is present at a minimal intensity, and full embodiment requires all three at maximum intensity. The paper states that full embodiment holds for the biological body but that it was unknown whether it could be induced toward an artificial one.[1]

Sense of self-location

Self-location is "a determinate volume in space where one feels to be located". Normally that volume coincides with the physical body, but the link can break, for example in out-of-body experiences. The main cue is the visuospatial perspective, which is normally egocentric; vestibular and tactile signals also contribute.[1]

Sense of agency

The sense of agency is the feeling of being in control of a body's movements. One proposed mechanism is a comparison between the sensory consequences the brain predicts for an action and the consequences that actually occur; when seen and performed movements match, the person feels like the author of the action. Kilteni and colleagues cite a study by Franck et al. in which a delay of more than 150 ms between action and visual feedback reduced agency.[1]

Sense of body ownership

Body ownership is the self-attribution of a body, the feeling that the body is the source of one's sensations. It is thought to arise from bottom-up sensory input (visual, tactile and proprioceptive correlations) combined with top-down knowledge, such as whether the object looks enough like a human body or limb to be accepted as one's own.[1] Guy and colleagues summarize the same model and describe the Kilteni definition as widely acknowledged in the VR community.[4]

Relationship between the components

How the three subcomponents interact is not settled. Kilteni and colleagues noted that there was little systematic evidence about their individual contributions or whether they are independent; one rubber hand study they cite found that ownership and agency could be dissociated.[1] The 2023 review by Guy, Normand, Jeunet-Kelway and Moreau reports that there is still no consensus on whether ownership and agency follow an additive model or are independent, while self-location and body ownership appear strongly linked.[4]

Relationship to presence

Self-location and presence are different questions. In the framework of Kilteni and colleagues, self-location concerns the relationship between the self and a body, whereas presence (specifically Slater's "place illusion") concerns the relationship between the self and the environment: one can feel present in a virtual room without having any virtual body at all. The authors also cite evidence that a virtual body seen in a head-mounted display contributes to the sense of being in the virtual place.[1] In a 2018 study by Waltemate and colleagues, the more immersive of two setups (a head-mounted display, compared with an L-shaped part of a CAVE projection system) significantly increased body ownership, agency and presence, and personalized photogrammetry-scanned avatars raised body ownership and presence compared with generic avatars.[5]

History

Rubber hand illusion

In their one-page 1998 report in Nature, Botvinick and Cohen, then at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, described "an illusion in which tactile sensations are referred to an alien limb" and argued that it revealed "a three-way interaction between vision, touch and proprioception".[2] In the standard setup the participant's real hand is hidden behind a screen while a rubber hand lies in view; both are stroked with paintbrushes at the same time. After a few seconds of synchronous stroking many participants feel that the rubber hand is their own, and when asked with eyes closed to indicate where their hidden hand is, they typically mislocalize it toward the rubber hand compared with a measurement taken beforehand, a shift called proprioceptive drift. Asynchronous stroking weakens both effects.[1]

Early VR observations

Informal observations of embodiment in VR predate the laboratory work. According to an essay by Andrea Stevenson Won, Jeremy Bailenson and Jaron Lanier, a scientist working on a city and harbor planning tool built by VPL Research with the University of Washington's HITLab once found his avatar's arm scaled to the size of a crane, probably because of a mistyped scale factor, and could still pick up distant objects accurately. VPL then informally tested increasingly unusual avatars between about 1989 and 1991, including a lobster avatar whose extra limbs were driven by remapping body-suit sensors. Lanier later named the ability to learn to control such bodies "homuncular flexibility".[6][7] Mar Gonzalez-Franco and Lanier later wrote that this 1980s work at VPL was reported in the popular press and anecdotally but was not rigorously tested or peer reviewed.[6] In one of the later controlled studies described in the Won, Bailenson and Lanier essay, participants given a virtual third arm extending about 1.3 m from the chest, steered by wrist rotation, took under five minutes on average to learn to use it.[7]

Out-of-body and full-body illusions

Two papers in the 24 August 2007 issue of Science extended the rubber hand method to the whole body. Henrik Ehrsson gave participants, through head-mounted displays, a view from a point behind their own body, combined with touch they could see and feel at the same time; they reported being located outside their physical body and looking at it.[1][8] Bigna Lenggenhager, Olaf Blanke and colleagues used conflicting visual and somatosensory input in VR; participants felt that a virtual body seen in front of them was their own and mislocalized themselves toward it.[9] In 2008 Valeria Petkova and Ehrsson reported a body-swap illusion strong enough that participants could feel they were in another person's body while facing and shaking hands with their own.[10]

Virtual limbs and virtual bodies

Slater, Perez-Marcos, Ehrsson and Sanchez-Vives showed in 2008 that a purely virtual arm could be felt as part of the body. Taps on the hidden real right hand were synchronized with taps on a stereo virtual arm that appeared to project from the shoulder; 21 male participants showed ownership by questionnaire and proprioceptive drift, while a control group of 20 who received asynchronous tapping did not experience the illusion.[11] A follow-up paper reported that the illusion could also be produced by synchronous movement of the real and virtual hand, and in a weaker form when a brain-computer interface moved the virtual hand through motor imagery.[12]

In a 2010 PLoS ONE study, Slater, Bernhard Spanlang, Sanchez-Vives and Blanke gave 24 male participants a first-person view of a life-sized virtual girl's body through a Fakespace Labs Wide5 head-mounted display with a 150 by 88 degree field of view. The design varied three factors: first- or third-person perspective, synchronous or asynchronous mirror reflections, and synchronous or asynchronous touch. Perspective gave the clearest set of responses, and it was the only one of the three factors with a significant influence on heart-rate deceleration: the first-person view of the female body was enough to produce a "body transfer illusion", shown both by questionnaire and by heart-rate deceleration when a virtual woman slapped the girl. Synchronous touch affected some questionnaire variables, while head-movement synchrony mattered least. The authors noted that this contrasted with earlier work that treated visuotactile synchrony as the critical factor.[13] Petkova, Khoshnevis and Ehrsson likewise found in 2011 that first-person perspective is critical for full-body ownership,[14] and a 2013 study by Maselli and Slater concluded that a first-person perspective over a humanoid body is essential. When the virtual body had a realistic skin tone and spatially replaced the real body, ownership arose without any added visuotactile or sensorimotor cues; less realistic or displaced bodies needed those cues.[15]

Factors that affect embodiment in VR

Kilteni and colleagues recommended a first-person viewpoint at the eyes of the virtual body, real-time mapping of the user's movements to it (by tracking rigid bodies and solving the avatar pose with inverse kinematics, or with full motion capture), synchronized touch through suitable haptic feedback, and a body that is morphologically similar to the user's.[1] Later studies have tested these factors individually.

Factor Finding Source
Visual perspective First-person perspective over the virtual body is essential for full-body ownership; third-person views produce weaker illusions and weaker physiological responses. Slater et al. 2010;[13] Petkova et al. 2011;[14] Maselli and Slater 2013[15]
Visuomotor synchrony In a CAVE-like study, 32 participants controlled an avatar with a tail; those whose tail followed their hip movement reported more ownership and agency than those whose tail moved randomly. Steptoe, Steed and Slater 2013[16]
Latency As summarized in a 2023 review, Waltemate et al. (2016) found motor performance affected when tracking latency exceeded 75 ms and the sense of agency reduced above 125 ms. Guy et al. 2023[4]
Tracking coverage Eubanks et al. (2021) found that adding foot tracking improved agency and self-location compared with head-and-hands tracking or no tracking. Guy et al. 2023[4]
Avatar appearance Personalized scanned avatars raised body ownership and presence compared with generic avatars. Waltemate et al. 2018[5]
Hand realism In a pick-and-place task, less realistic virtual hands gave a stronger sense of agency, while a human hand gave stronger ownership. Argelaguet et al. 2016[17]
Body proportions Participants felt ownership over a virtual arm up to three times the length of their real arm, less strongly at four times, with the illusion declining as length increased. Kilteni et al. 2012[18]
User age In pooled data from nine experiments, participants over 30 had significantly lower embodiment scores than participants under 30. Peck and Gonzalez-Franco 2021[19]

Guy and colleagues also list user traits, such as emotions, personality and locus of control, among the factors reported to influence embodiment.[4]

Measurement

Because the sense of embodiment is subjective, it is usually measured indirectly through its subcomponents. Kilteni and colleagues grouped the methods in use by 2012 into questionnaires, estimates of body position (such as proprioceptive drift, or returning to the initial position after being passively displaced while blindfolded), estimates of body-part size, and physiological responses to a threat aimed at the virtual body, such as skin conductance or heart-rate deceleration.[1]

Questionnaires

Questionnaire items date back to the original rubber hand study, which asked participants to rate statements such as "I felt as if the rubber hand were my hand".[1] In 2018 Gonzalez-Franco, then of Microsoft Research, and Peck, of Davidson College, reviewed earlier questionnaires and proposed a standard 25-item embodiment questionnaire covering six areas: body ownership, agency and motor control, tactile sensations, location of the body, external appearance, and response to external stimuli.[3] Aiming to make results comparable across experiments, Peck and Gonzalez-Franco then validated it with more than 400 questionnaires from nine experiments and reduced it to 16 items in four interrelated subscales (Appearance, Response, Ownership and Multi-Sensory), with Cronbach's alpha between 0.72 and 0.82 within each subscale.[19]

Roth and Latoschik published the Virtual Embodiment Questionnaire (VEQ) in 2020. A confirmatory factor analysis of three experiments (N = 196) supported three factors: ownership of a virtual body, agency over a virtual body, and perceived change in the body schema. A fourth study (N = 22) checked the scale's reliability and validity by introducing latency and latency jitter.[20]

Behavioral and physiological measures

Measure What it is used for Notes
Proprioceptive drift Shift in the felt position of the real hand or body toward the artificial one In the long-arm study, drift grew with arm length but did not correlate with ownership;[18] Guy et al. call its validity for body ownership questionable.[4]
Threat responses Skin conductance, heart-rate deceleration or defensive withdrawal when the virtual body is threatened Used in the body transfer, long-arm and tail studies.[13][18][16]
Body-size estimation Participants adjust a virtual body part until it matches the felt size of their own Listed by Kilteni et al. among ownership measures.[1]
Electroencephalography (EEG) Real-time neural measure Guy et al. consider it a good future candidate if its sensitivity to movement and practicality improve.[4]

Effects of virtual bodies on users

Several studies report that the type of virtual body a person is embodied in changes how they perceive the world or behave. The related Proteus effect, named by Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson in 2007, describes people conforming to their self-representation: in their experiments, participants given more attractive avatars in immersive virtual environments were more intimate with a confederate, and participants given taller avatars negotiated more confidently.[21] Guy and colleagues describe the perceptual and behavioral effects of virtual body ownership as "allegedly linked" to the Proteus effect.[4]

Study Virtual body Reported effect
Peck, Seinfeld, Aglioti and Slater 2013 60 light-skinned female participants in dark-skinned, light-skinned, purple-skinned or no virtual body The dark-skinned body reduced implicit racial bias more than the other conditions.[22]
Banakou, Groten and Slater 2013 30 adults embodied as a 4-year-old child or as an adult scaled to the same height Both gave strong ownership; the child body caused greater overestimation of object sizes and faster self-association with child-like attributes. Visuomotor asynchrony removed these differences.[23]
Osimo, Pizarro, Spanlang and Slater 2015 Participants alternated between a self-like body and a body resembling Sigmund Freud to counsel themselves Mood improved more when the counsellor was Freud, and more with synchronous movement.[24]
Bourdin, Barberia, Oliva and Slater 2017 Virtual body, then a viewpoint lifted out of it (16 female participants per group) The group whose link to the body was cut after the viewpoint left it reported lower fear of death than a control group.[25]
Seinfeld et al. 2018 Male domestic violence offenders and controls embodied in a female victim during a virtual abuse scene Offenders improved at recognizing fear in female faces after the experience.[26]
Banakou, Kishore and Slater 2018 15 male participants embodied as Albert Einstein, 15 in a body of similar age to their own The Einstein group performed better on a cognitive task, most for participants with low self-esteem, and showed less implicit bias against older people.[27]

Applications

Therapy and rehabilitation

Embodiment methods are studied as a tool for virtual reality therapy. The domestic violence paradigm in the Seinfeld study had also been used outside the laboratory: the paper's 2018 competing-interests statement says that Slater and Sanchez-Vives founded Virtual Bodyworks Inc., which at the time licensed a virtual environment for domestic violence offenders to the Catalan Justice Department for its rehabilitation training program.[26] In pain research, a 2023 chapter by Matamala-Gomez, Donegan and Swidrak distinguishes distraction, which helps more with acute pain, from body ownership illusions, which act on the body representation and are being explored for chronic pain.[28]

Consumer VR and social VR

Gonzalez-Franco and Peck describe embodiment illusions as the basis for many social VR experiences.[3] Meta's Movement SDK documentation describes its Body Tracking API as using "hand, controller, and headset movements to infer the body poses of the user".[29] When Meta announced at Connect 2022 that its avatars in Horizon Worlds would get legs, it later told UploadVR that the keynote demonstration had used "animations created from motion capture" rather than headset tracking.[30] In December 2023 Meta released Inside-Out Body Tracking for Meta Quest 3 developers in its v60 SDK. It uses the headset's downward-facing side cameras to track the wrists, elbows, shoulders and torso; UploadVR noted that inverse-kinematics arm estimates are often wrong and uncomfortable because the system is guessing. The companion Generative Legs feature estimates leg positions with an AI model on Quest 3, Quest Pro and Quest 2; it can detect jumping and crouching but not movements such as raising a knee.[31]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 Konstantina Kilteni, Raphaela Groten, Mel Slater (2012). "The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality". Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 373-387. MIT Press (author copy, Universitat de Barcelona repository). doi:10.1162/PRES_a_00124. https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/53294/1/634024.pdf. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Matthew Botvinick, Jonathan Cohen (1998-02-19). "Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see". Nature, vol. 391, p. 756. doi:10.1038/35784. https://www.nature.com/articles/35784. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Mar Gonzalez-Franco, Tabitha C. Peck (2018-06-22). "Avatar Embodiment. Towards a Standardized Questionnaire". Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 5, article 74. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00074. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2018.00074/full. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Martin Guy, Jean-Marie Normand, Camille Jeunet-Kelway, Guillaume Moreau (2023-12-05). "The sense of embodiment in Virtual Reality and its assessment methods". Frontiers in Virtual Reality, vol. 4. doi:10.3389/frvir.2023.1141683. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10.3389/frvir.2023.1141683/full. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 T. Waltemate, D. Gall, D. Roth, M. Botsch, M. E. Latoschik (2018-04). "The Impact of Avatar Personalization and Immersion on Virtual Body Ownership, Presence, and Emotional Response". IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1643-1652. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794629. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29543180/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Mar Gonzalez-Franco, Jaron Lanier (2017-06-30). "Model of Illusions and Virtual Reality". Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 8, article 1125. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5492764/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Andrea Stevenson Won, Jeremy N. Bailenson, Jaron Lanier (2015). "Homuncular Flexibility: The Human Ability to Inhabit Nonhuman Avatars". Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Wiley). Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab. doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0165. https://vhil.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj29011/files/media/file/won-etsbs-homuncular-flexibility.pdf. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  8. ↑ H. H. Ehrsson (2007-08-24). "The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences". Science, vol. 317, no. 5841, p. 1048. doi:10.1126/science.1142175. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17717177/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  9. ↑ B. Lenggenhager, T. Tadi, T. Metzinger, O. Blanke (2007-08-24). "Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness". Science, vol. 317, no. 5841, pp. 1096-1099. doi:10.1126/science.1143439. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17717189/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  10. ↑ V. I. Petkova, H. H. Ehrsson (2008-12-03). "If I were you: perceptual illusion of body swapping". PLoS ONE, vol. 3, no. 12, e3832. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003832. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19050755/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  11. ↑ M. Slater, D. Perez-Marcos, H. H. Ehrsson, M. V. Sanchez-Vives (2008-08-20). "Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 2, article 6. doi:10.3389/neuro.09.006.2008. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18958207/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  12. ↑ M. Slater, D. Perez-Marcos, H. H. Ehrsson, M. V. Sanchez-Vives (2009-09-15). "Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body". Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 214-220. doi:10.3389/neuro.01.029.2009. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20011144/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Mel Slater, Bernhard Spanlang, Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, Olaf Blanke (2010-05-12). "First Person Experience of Body Transfer in Virtual Reality". PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 5, e10564. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010564. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010564. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 V. I. Petkova, M. Khoshnevis, H. H. Ehrsson (2011-03-07). "The perspective matters! Multisensory integration in ego-centric reference frames determines full-body ownership". Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 2, article 35. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00035. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21687436/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 A. Maselli, M. Slater (2013-03-21). "The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 7, article 83. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00083. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23519597/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 W. Steptoe, A. Steed, M. Slater (2013-04). "Human tails: ownership and control of extended humanoid avatars". IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 583-590. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23428442/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  17. ↑ F. Argelaguet, L. Hoyet, M. Trico, A. Lecuyer (2016). "The role of interaction in virtual embodiment: Effects of the virtual hand representation". 2016 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR). HAL Inria. doi:10.1109/VR.2016.7504682. https://inria.hal.science/hal-01346229. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 K. Kilteni, J.-M. Normand, M. V. Sanchez-Vives, M. Slater (2012-07-19). "Extending body space in immersive virtual reality: a very long arm illusion". PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 7, e40867. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040867. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22829891/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Tabitha C. Peck, Mar Gonzalez-Franco (2021-02-09). "Avatar Embodiment. A Standardized Questionnaire". Frontiers in Virtual Reality, vol. 1. doi:10.3389/frvir.2020.575943. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10.3389/frvir.2020.575943/full. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  20. ↑ D. Roth, M. E. Latoschik (2020-12). "Construction of the Virtual Embodiment Questionnaire (VEQ)". IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 3546-3556. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3023603. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9199571. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  21. ↑ Nick Yee, Jeremy Bailenson (2007). "The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior". Human Communication Research, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 271-290 (author preprint). doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x. https://nickyee.com/pubs/Yee%20&%20Bailenson%20-%20Proteus%20Effect%20(in%20press).pdf. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  22. ↑ T. C. Peck, S. Seinfeld, S. M. Aglioti, M. Slater (2013-09). "Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias". Consciousness and Cognition, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 779-787. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23727712/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  23. ↑ D. Banakou, R. Groten, M. Slater (2013-07-30). "Illusory ownership of a virtual child body causes overestimation of object sizes and implicit attitude changes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, no. 31, pp. 12846-12851. doi:10.1073/pnas.1306779110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23858436/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  24. ↑ S. A. Osimo, R. Pizarro, B. Spanlang, M. Slater (2015-09-10). "Conversations between self and self as Sigmund Freud - A virtual body ownership paradigm for self counselling". Scientific Reports, vol. 5, article 13899. doi:10.1038/srep13899. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26354311/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  25. ↑ P. Bourdin, I. Barberia, R. Oliva, M. Slater (2017-01-09). "A Virtual Out-of-Body Experience Reduces Fear of Death". PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 1, e0169343. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169343. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28068368/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 S. Seinfeld, J. Arroyo-Palacios, G. Iruretagoyena, R. Hortensius, L. E. Zapata, D. Borland, B. de Gelder, M. Slater, M. V. Sanchez-Vives (2018-02-09). "Offenders become the victim in virtual reality: impact of changing perspective in domestic violence". Scientific Reports, vol. 8, article 2692. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-19987-7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29426819/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  27. ↑ D. Banakou, S. Kishore, M. Slater (2018-06-11). "Virtually Being Einstein Results in an Improvement in Cognitive Task Performance and a Decrease in Age Bias". Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, article 917. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00917. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29942270/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  28. ↑ M. Matamala-Gomez, T. Donegan, J. Swidrak (2023). "VR for Pain Relief". Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, vol. 65, pp. 309-336. Springer. doi:10.1007/7854_2022_402. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36592274/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  29. ↑ "Movement SDK for Unity - Overview". Meta Horizon OS Developers. Meta. https://developers.meta.com/horizon/documentation/unity/move-overview/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  30. ↑ Ivan Mehta (2022-10-14). "Meta's legs update is not on the horizon yet". TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/14/metas-legs-update-is-not-on-the-horizon-yet/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
  31. ↑ David Heaney (2023-12-14). "Quest 3 Inside-Out Upper Body Tracking & Mixed Reality Occlusion Are Out Now". UploadVR. https://www.uploadvr.com/quest-3-inside-out-upper-body-tracking-and-dynamic-occlusion/. Retrieved 2026-10-04.
Retrieved from "https://vrarwiki.com/index.php?title=Sense_of_embodiment&oldid=46442"