Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Somatosensory Illusions

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Somatosensory Research Methods

Part of the book series: Neuromethods ((NM,volume 196))

Abstract

Illusions arouse interest in the layperson and researcher alike. The layperson learns that perception is fallible, and the researcher wants to better understand mechanisms of perception and implement illusions in various applications. We are accustomed to visual illusions, but less so to their somatosensory sisters, some of which summon fresh amazement bordering on disbelief. What can possibly make us feel that our tongue is split in two, or that a brush touching an artificial hand touches us? How do we study such experiences? This chapter directs the reader to sources describing a variety of somatosensory illusions. We also outline methodological issues in studying them, and describe methods used to study the well-known rubber hand illusion, and the recently described whose hand illusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Spillmann L (2009) Phenomenology and neurophysiological correlations: two approaches to perception research. Vis Res 49:1507–1521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barker KB, Rice C (2019) Folk illusions: children, folklore, and sciences of perception. Indiana University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Shapiro A, Todorović D (2017) The Oxford compendium of visual illusions. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Todorović D (2020) What are visual illusions? Perception 49(11):1128–1199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hayward V (2015) Tactile illusions. Scholarpedia 10(3):8245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodwin GM, McCloskey DI, Matthews PB (1972) The contribution of muscle afferents to Kinaesthesia shown by vibration induced illusions of movement and by the effects of paralysing joint afferents. Brain 95(4):705–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kavounoudias A, Blanchard C, Landelle C, Chancel M (2023) Muscle tendon vibration: a method for estimating kinaesthetic perception. Ch 3, present volume

    Google Scholar 

  8. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see. Nature 391(6669):756

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Israr A, Poupyrev I (2011) Tactile brush: drawing on skin with a tactile grid display. In: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems - CHI 11. ACM Press, New York, pp 2019–2028

    Google Scholar 

  10. Seizova-Cajic T, Fuchs X, Brooks J (2023) Creating tactile motion. Ch 4, present volume

    Google Scholar 

  11. Visell Y et al (2008) A Vibrotactile device for display of virtual ground materials in walking. In: Ferre M (ed) Haptics: perception, devices and scenarios. EuroHaptics 2008. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5024. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lederman SJ, Jones LA (2011) Tactile and haptic illusions. IEEE Trans Haptics 4(4):273–294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayward V (2008) A brief taxonomy of tactile illusions and demonstrations that can be done in a hardware store. Brain Res Bull 75(6):742–752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Craske B (1977) Perception of impossible limb positions induced by tendon vibration. Science 196(4285):71–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mochiyama H et al (2005) Haptic illusions induced by moving line stimuli. First joint Eurohaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for Virtual environment and teleoperator systems. World Haptics Conference, Pisa, Italy, 2005, pp 645–648

    Google Scholar 

  16. Weber EH, Ross HE, Murray DJ (1978) E. H. Weber: the sense of touch. (De Tactu, 1934, translated by HE Ross; Der Tastsinn und das Gemeingefuhl, 1946, translated by DJ Murray). Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goudge ME (1918) A qualitative and quantitative study of Weber’s illusion. Am J Psychol 29:81–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Longo MR, Haggard P (2011) Weber’s illusion and body shape: anisotropy of tactile size perception on the hand. JEP: HPP 37:720–726

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jaensch E (1906) Über Täuschungen des Tastsinns. (Im Hinblick auf die geometrisch-optischen Täuschungen). Zeitschr Psychol 41:280–294

    Google Scholar 

  20. Revesz G (1934) System der optischen und haptischen Raumtauschungen. Z Psychol Bd 131:296–375

    Google Scholar 

  21. Katz D (1925/1989) The world of touch. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schilder P (1935/1999) The image and appearance of the human body. Kegan Paul, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gentaz E, Hatwell Y (2008) Haptic perceptual illusions. In: Grunwald M (ed) Human haptic perception: basics and applications Birkhäuser. Basel

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gallace A, Spence C (2014) In touch with the future. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones L (1988) Motor illusions: what do they reveal about proprioception? Psychol Bull 103(1):72–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lackner J (1988) Some proprioceptive influences on the perceptual representation of body shape and orientation. Brain 111:281–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Taylor MW, Taylor JL, Seizova-Cajić T (2017) Muscle vibration-induced illusions: review of contributing factors, taxonomy of illusions and user’s guide. Multisens Res 30(1):25–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Culbertson H, Schorr SB, Okamura AM (2018) Haptics: the present and future of artificial touch sensation. Annu Rev Control Robot Auton Syst 1:385–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Newport R, Wong DY, Howard EM, Silver E (2016) The Anne Boleyn illusion is a six-fingered salute to sensory remapping. Iperception 7(5):2041669516669732

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoshi T, Abe D, Shinoda H (2009) Adding tactile reaction to hologram. RO-MAN The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Toyama, pp 7–11, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326299

  31. Rossi GB (2014) Measurement and probability: a probabilistic theory of measurement with applications. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Kingdom F, Prins N (2014) Psychophysics: a practical introduction, 2nd edn. Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  33. Orne MT (1962) On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Am Psychol 17:776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lush P (2020) Demand characteristics confound the rubber hand illusion. Collabra Psychol 6(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Seth A, Roseboom W, Dienes Z, Lush P (2021) What's up with the Rubber Hand Illusion? psyarxiv.com/b4qcy

    Google Scholar 

  36. de Lange FP, Heilbron M, Kok P (2018) How do expectations shape perception? Trends Cogn Sci 22(9):764–779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Orne M, Scheibe KE (1964) The contribution of nondeprivation factors in the production of sensory deprivation effects: the psychology of the “panic button”. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 68:3–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rohde M, Luca M, Ernst M (2011) The rubber hand illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS One 6(6):e21659

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Nishida S, Johnston A (1999) Influence of motion signals on the perceived position of spatial pattern. Nature 397:610–612

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McCloskey DI (1973) Differences between the senses of movement and position shown by the effects of loading and vibration of muscles in man. Brain Res 63:119–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Smeets JB, Brenner E (2002) Illusions in action: consequences of inconsistent processing of spatial attributes. Exp Brain Res 147:135–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Penrose LS, Penrose R (1958) Impossible objects: a special type of illusion. Br J Psychol 49:31–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Seizova-Cajić T, Stuart E, Taylor J (2017) Whose hand? An illusion of self-touch and stubborn proprioceptive drift. Science of the self: the Agency & Body Representation Research Forum, Sydney, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  44. Reader AT, Trifonova VS, Ehrsson HH (2021) The relationship between referral of touch and the feeling of ownership in the rubber hand illusion. Front Psychol 12:629590

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Kalckert A, Ehrsson HH (2014) The moving rubber hand illusion revisited: comparing movements and visuotactile stimulation to induce illusory ownership. Conscious Cogn 26:117–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Riemer M, Kleinböhl D, Hölzl R, Trojan J (2013) Action and perception in the rubber hand illusion. Exp Brain Res 229:383–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Walsh LD, Moseley GL, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC (2011) Proprioceptive signals contribute to the sense of body ownership. J Physiol 589:3009–3021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Lenggenhager B, Hilti L, Brugger P (2015) Disturbed body integrity and the “Rubber Foot Illusion”. Neuropsychology 29:205–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tsakiris M (2008) Looking for myself: current multisensory input alters self-face recognition. PLoS One 3:e4040

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Ehrsson HH (2007) The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences. Science 317:1048

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lenggenhager B, Tadi T, Metzinger T, Blanke O (2007) Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science 317:1096–1099

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Makin TR, Holmes NP, Ehrsson HH (2008) On the other hand: dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behav Brain Res 191:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tsakiris M (2010) My body in the brain: a neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 48:703–712

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kilteni K, Maselli A, Kording KP, Slater M (2015) Over my fake body: body ownership illusions for studying the multisensory basis of own-body perception. Front Hum Neurosci 9:141

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Riemer M, Fuchs X, Bublatzky F et al (2014) The rubber hand illusion depends on a congruent mapping between real and artificial fingers. Acta Psychol 152C:34–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Farmer H, Tajadura-Jimenez A, Tsakiris M (2012) Beyond the colour of my skin: how skin colour affects the sense of body-ownership. Conscious Cogn 21(3):1242–1256

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Longo MR, Schüür F, Kammers MP et al (2009) Self awareness and the body image. Acta Psychol 132:166–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Perez-Marcos D, Sanchez-Vives MV, Slater M (2012) Is my hand connected to my body? The impact of body continuity and arm alignment on the virtual hand illusion. Cogn Neurodyn 6:295–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Zopf R, Friedman J, Williams MA (2015) The plausibility of visual information for hand ownership modulates multisensory synchrony perception. Exp Brain Res 233:2311–2321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Shimada S, Fukuda K, Hiraki K (2009) Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback. PLoS One 4:e6185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 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. Exp Brain Res 204:343–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE (2004) That’s my hand! activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305:875–877

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Heed T, Gründler M, Rinkleib J et al (2011) Visual information and rubber hand embodiment differentially affect reach-to-grasp actions. Acta Psychol 138:263–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Riemer M, Wolbers T, Kuehn E (2019) Preserved multisensory body representations in advanced age. Sci Rep 9:2663

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Longo MR, Schüür F, Kammers MP et al (2008) What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition 107:978–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Romano D, Maravita A, Perugini M (2021) Psychometric properties of the embodiment scale for the rubber hand illusion and its relation with individual differences. Sci Rep 11:5029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Riemer M, Trojan J, Beauchamp M, Fuchs X (2019) The rubber hand universe: on the impact of methodological differences in the rubber hand illusion. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 104:268–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Tsakiris M, Haggard P (2005) The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. JEP: HPP 31:80–91

    Google Scholar 

  69. Riemer M, Bublatzky F, Trojan J, Alpers GW (2015) Defensive activation during the rubber hand illusion: ownership versus proprioceptive drift. Biol Psychol 109:86–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kammers MPM, de Vignemont F, Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC (2009) The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia 47(1):204–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Zopf R, Truong S, Finkbeiner M, Friedman J, Williams MA (2011) Viewing and feeling touch modulates hand position for reaching. Neuropsychologia 49(5):1287–1293

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Holmes NP, Snijders HJ, Spence C (2006) Reaching with alien limbs: visual exposure to prosthetic hands in a mirror biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership. Percept Psychophys 68(4):685–701

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Holle H, McLatchie N, Maurer S, Ward J (2011) Proprioceptive drift without illusions of ownership for rotated hands in the “rubber hand illusion” paradigm. Cogn Neurosci 2(3–4):171–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (2003) Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:1499–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ehrsson HH, Wiech K, Weiskopf N, Dolan RJ, Passingham RE (2007) Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(23):9828–9833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Puckett AM, Sanchez Panchuelo RM (2023) Imaging somatosensory cortex: human functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), present volume

    Google Scholar 

  77. Moseley GL, Olthof N, Venema A, Don S, Wijers M, Gallace A (2008) Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105(35):13169–13173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. de Haan AM, Van Stralen HE, Smit M, Keizer A, van der Stigchel S, Dijkerman HC (2017) No consistent cooling of the real hand in the rubber hand illusion. Acta Psychol 179:68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Zopf R, Savage G, Williams MA (2010) Crossmodal congruency measures of lateral distance effects on the rubber hand illusion. Neuropsychologia 48(3):713–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Zopf R, Savage G, Williams MA (2013) The crossmodal congruency task as a means to obtain an objective behavioural measure in the rubber hand illusion paradigm. J Visual Exp 77:e50530

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ramachandran VS, Hirstein W (2019) Three laws of qualia: what neurology tells us about the biological functions of consciousness. J Conscious Stud 4:429–457

    Google Scholar 

  82. Geldard F (1975) Sensory saltation: Metastability in the perceptual world. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  83. Fodor JA (1983) Modularity of mind: an essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  84. Nakayama K (2005) Modularity in perception, its relation to cognition and knowledge. In: Goldstein EB (ed) Blackwell handbook of sensation and perception

    Google Scholar 

  85. Blake R, O’Shea RP (2009) Binocular Rivalry. In: Squire LR (ed) Encyclopedia of neuroscience. Academic Press, pp 179–187

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dejan Todorović for comments on the manuscript, and Sandra Rose Brand and Marta Beauchamp for their artistic contributions to the figures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Tatjana Seizova-Cajić

  2. Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Regine Zopf

  3. Lab for Autonomic Neuroscience, Imaging and Cognition (LANIC), Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany

    Regine Zopf

  4. Biological Psychology and Neuroergonomics, Technical University Berlin, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Martin Riemer

  5. Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Xaver Fuchs

  6. Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Xaver Fuchs

Authors
  1. Tatjana Seizova-Cajić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Regine Zopf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Riemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xaver Fuchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatjana Seizova-Cajić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Nicholas Paul Holmes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

Seizova-Cajić, T., Zopf, R., Riemer, M., Fuchs, X. (2023). Somatosensory Illusions. In: Holmes, N.P. (eds) Somatosensory Research Methods. Neuromethods, vol 196. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3068-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3068-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-3067-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-3068-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation