Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 3/2017

07-04-2016 | Original Article

Self-perception beyond the body: the role of past agency

Auteurs: Roman Liepelt, Thomas Dolk, Bernhard Hommel

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2017

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Technological progress provides us with an increasing variety of devices that now mediate what previously has been achieved by social face-to-face interaction. Here, we investigate whether this leads to the incorporation of such devices into representations of our body. Using explicit (body ownership questionnaire) and implicit (proprioceptive drift rate) measures together with a synchronous/asynchronous stroking technique, we show that people have an increased tendency to integrate non-corporeal objects into their body after synchronous stroking. Explicit measures of body ownership show that people had greater average scores in the synchronous condition as compared to the asynchronous condition for all objects that we tested (computer mouse, rubber hand, smart phone, and a wooden block). However, our implicit measure of body ownership showed a numerically larger proprioceptive drift for a rubber hand than for a computer mouse, numerically comparable ownership measures for a smart phone and a rubber hand, and a significantly stronger proprioceptive drift for a smart phone than for a wooden block. These findings suggest that direct, subjective measures and indirect, objective measures of body ownership are based on different kinds of information; the latter might be more sensitive to objects for which we recall past agency based on our history of personal experiences with these objects. Taken altogether, our observations support the idea that the perceived bodily self is rather flexible and is likely to emerge through multisensory integration and top-down expectations of agency.
Voetnoten
1
For the computer mouse, the Friedman test of the questionnaire data showed significantly increased ratings after synchronous than asynchronous stroking for body ownership items Q1 (χ 2(1) = 15.21, p < 0.001), Q2 (χ 2(1) = 15.21, p < 0.001) and Q3 (χ 2(1) = 4.77, p = 0.029). We found no synchrony effect in Q4 and Q7 (χ 2s(1) < 0.23, ps > 0.63). For Q6 (χ 2(1) = 5.40, p = 0.020) and Q8 (χ 2(1) = 11.27, p = 0.001) synchronous as compared to asynchronous stroking significantly increased the ratings, while a similar pattern was found for Q5 that, however, did not reach the significance level (χ 2(1) = 3.27, p = 0.071). For the rubber hand, we found a significant increase after synchronous than asynchronous stroking in all body ownership items Q1 (χ 2(1) = 10.89, p = 0.001), Q2 (χ 2(1) = 7.20, p = 0.007), and Q3 (χ 2(1) = 9.80, p = 0.002). Q4, Q5 and Q7 showed no significant effect of Synchrony (χ 2s(1) < 2.01, ps > 0.15), while there were marginally increased ratings after synchronous than asynchronous stroking in Q6 that, however, did not reach the standard significance level (χ 2(1) = 3.56, p = 0.059) and Q8 (χ 2(1) = 3.20, p = 0.074).
 
2
For the smart phone, the non-parametric Friedman test of the questionnaire data showed a significant increase for all three body ownership items after synchronous than asynchronous stroking, Q1 (χ 2(1) = 4.77, p = 0.029), Q2 (χ 2(1) = 14.22, p < 0.001), and Q3 (χ 2(1) = 5.56, p = 0.018), but not in any other item (Q4–Q8: χ 2s(1) < 2.28, ps > 0.13). For the rubber hand, there was a significant increase after synchronous than asynchronous stroking in body ownership items Q2 (χ 2(1) = 11.84, p = 0.001) and Q3 (χ 2(1) = 8.00, p = 0.005) and a marginal numerical, but non-significant increase in the same direction in Q1 (χ 2(1) = 2.88, p = 0.09). Q4, Q5 and Q7 showed no significant effect of Synchrony (χ 2s(1) < 2.58, ps > 0.10), while we found a significantly increased rating after synchronous than asynchronous stroking in Q6 (χ 2(1) = 7.12, p = 0.008) and a numerical, but non-significant increase in the same direction for the rating in Q8 (χ 2(1) = 3.56, p = 0.059).
 
3
For the smart phone, we found a significantly enhanced score in body ownership items after synchronous than asynchronous stroking in Q1 (χ 2(1) = 4.77, p = 0.029) and Q3 (χ 2(1) = 4.00, p = 0.046), but not in Q2 (χ 2(1) = 0.89, p = 3.46). There were no significant differences after synchronous than asynchronous stroking in all other items (Q4–Q8: χ 2s(1) < 1.93, ps > 0.165). For the wooden block, we observed significantly enhanced scores after synchronous than asynchronous stroking in Q1 (χ 2(1) = 12.25, p < 0.001) and Q2 (χ 2(1) = 10.89, p = 0.001), while there was a small, but non-significant increase after synchronous than asynchronous stroking in Q3 (χ 2(1) = 3.77, p = 0.052). For Q4 (χ 2(1) = 3.77, p = 0.052) and Q8 (χ 2(1) = 3.60, p = 0.058) we similarly found a numerical, but non-significant increase after synchronous than asynchronous stroking, and all other items (Q5, Q6 and Q7) showed no significant effect of synchrony (χ 2s(1) < 0.34, ps > 0.55).
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Armel, K. C., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2003). Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological sciences, 270(1523), 1499–1506.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Armel, K. C., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2003). Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological sciences, 270(1523), 1499–1506.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Bassolino, M., Serino, A., Ubaldi, S., & Làdavas, E. (2010). Everyday use of the computer mouse extends peripersonal space representation. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 803–811.CrossRefPubMed Bassolino, M., Serino, A., Ubaldi, S., & Làdavas, E. (2010). Everyday use of the computer mouse extends peripersonal space representation. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 803–811.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Bertelson, P., & Radeau, M. (1981). Cross-modal bias and perceptual fusion with auditory-visual spatial discordance. Perception and Psychophysics, 29(6), 578–584.CrossRefPubMed Bertelson, P., & Radeau, M. (1981). Cross-modal bias and perceptual fusion with auditory-visual spatial discordance. Perception and Psychophysics, 29(6), 578–584.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature, 391(6669), 756.CrossRefPubMed Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature, 391(6669), 756.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Constable, M. D., Kritikos, A., Lipp, O. V., & Bayliss, A. P. (2014). Object ownership and action: The influence of social context and choice on the physical manipulation of personal property. Experimental Brain Research, 232(12), 3749–3761. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-4063-1.CrossRefPubMed Constable, M. D., Kritikos, A., Lipp, O. V., & Bayliss, A. P. (2014). Object ownership and action: The influence of social context and choice on the physical manipulation of personal property. Experimental Brain Research, 232(12), 3749–3761. doi:10.​1007/​s00221-014-4063-1.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference De Preester, H., Tsakiris, M. (2009). Body-extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–319.CrossRef De Preester, H., Tsakiris, M. (2009). Body-extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–319.CrossRef
go back to reference Farnè, A., Serino, A., & Ladavas, E. (2007). Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space following tool-use: Determinants and spatial characteristics revealed through cross-modal extinction. Cortex, 43(3), 436–443.CrossRefPubMed Farnè, A., Serino, A., & Ladavas, E. (2007). Dynamic size-change of peri-hand space following tool-use: Determinants and spatial characteristics revealed through cross-modal extinction. Cortex, 43(3), 436–443.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 14–21.CrossRef Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 14–21.CrossRef
go back to reference James, W. (1890/1981). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt. James, W. (1890/1981). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
go back to reference Lenggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T., & Blanke, O. (2007). Video ergo sum: Manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science, 317(5841), 1096–1099.CrossRefPubMed Lenggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T., & Blanke, O. (2007). Video ergo sum: Manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science, 317(5841), 1096–1099.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Longo, M. R., Schuur, F., Kammers, M. P., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition, 107(3), 978–998.CrossRefPubMed Longo, M. R., Schuur, F., Kammers, M. P., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition, 107(3), 978–998.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Ma, K., & Hommel, B. (2013). The virtual-hand illusion: effects of impact and threat on perceived ownership and affective resonance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 604.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ma, K., & Hommel, B. (2013). The virtual-hand illusion: effects of impact and threat on perceived ownership and affective resonance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 604.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Macaluso, E., & Maravita, A. (2010). The representation of space near the body through touch and vision. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 782–795.CrossRefPubMed Macaluso, E., & Maravita, A. (2010). The representation of space near the body through touch and vision. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 782–795.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Makin, T. R., Holmes, N. P., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008). On the other hand: dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behavioural Brain Research, 191(1), 1–10.CrossRefPubMed Makin, T. R., Holmes, N. P., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008). On the other hand: dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behavioural Brain Research, 191(1), 1–10.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86.CrossRefPubMed Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Rohde, M., Di Luca, M., & Ernst, M. O. (2011). The rubber hand illusion: Feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS One, 6(6), e21659.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rohde, M., Di Luca, M., & Ernst, M. O. (2011). The rubber hand illusion: Feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS One, 6(6), e21659.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Newen, A. (2008). Beyond the comparator model: A multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 219–239.CrossRefPubMed Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Newen, A. (2008). Beyond the comparator model: A multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 219–239.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Tsakiris, M. (2010). My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 703–712.CrossRefPubMed Tsakiris, M. (2010). My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 703–712.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Tsakiris, M., Carpenter, L., James, D., & Fotopoulou, A. (2010). Hands only illusion: Multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects. Experimental Brain Research, 204(3), 343–352.CrossRefPubMed Tsakiris, M., Carpenter, L., James, D., & Fotopoulou, A. (2010). Hands only illusion: Multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects. Experimental Brain Research, 204(3), 343–352.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2005). The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 80–91.PubMed Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2005). The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 80–91.PubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Self-perception beyond the body: the role of past agency
Auteurs
Roman Liepelt
Thomas Dolk
Bernhard Hommel
Publicatiedatum
07-04-2016
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0766-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2017

Psychological Research 3/2017 Naar de uitgave