Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 233, Issue 5, pp 1463–1470 | Cite as

Kinaesthetic mirror illusion and spatial congruence

  • Morgane Metral
  • Marie Chancel
  • Clémentine Brun
  • Marion Luyat
  • Anne Kavounoudias
  • Michel GuerrazEmail author
Research Article


Position sense and kinaesthesia are mainly derived from the integration of somaesthetic and visual afferents to form a single, coherent percept. However, visual information related to the body can play a dominant role in these perceptual processes in some circumstances, and notably in the mirror paradigm. The objective of the present study was to determine whether or not the kinaesthetic illusions experienced in the mirror paradigm obey one of the key rules of multisensory integration: spatial congruence. In the experiment, the participant’s left arm (the image of which was reflected in a mirror) was either passively flexed/extended with a motorized manipulandum (to induce a kinaesthetic illusion in the right arm) or remained static. The right (unseen) arm remained static but was positioned parallel to the left arm’s starting position or placed in extension (from 15° to 90°, in steps of 15°), relative to the left arm’s flexed starting position. The results revealed that the frequency of the illusion decreased only slightly as the incongruence prior to movement onset between the reflected left arm and the hidden right arm grew and remained quite high even in the most incongruent settings. However, the greater the incongruence between the visually and somaesthetically specified positions of the right forearm (from 15° to 90°), the later the onset and the lower the perceived speed of the kinaesthetic illusion. Although vision dominates perception in a context of visuoproprioceptive conflict (as in the mirror paradigm), our results show that the relative weightings allocated to proprioceptive and visual signals vary according to the degree of spatial incongruence prior to movement onset.


Kinaesthesia Spatial congruence Mirror illusion Multisensory integration 



We thank Frederic Bouclier for his help in data collection, and Dr David Fraser (Biotech Communication, Damery, France) for improving the manuscript’s English. The work was supported through funding from the University Savoie Mont Blanc (France).

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interests.


  1. Austen EL, Soto-Faraco S, Enns JT, Kingstone A (2004) Mislocalizations of touch to a fake hand. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:170–181. doi: 10.3758/CABN.4.2.170 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaulé V, Tremblay S, Théoret H (2012) Interhemispheric control of unilateral movement. Neural Plast. doi: 10.1155/2012/627816
  3. Blanchard C, Roll R, Roll J-P, Kavounoudias A (2011) Combined contribution of tactile and proprioceptive feedback to hand movement perception. Brain Res 1382:219–229. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.01.066 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard C, Roll R, Roll J-P, Kavounoudias A (2013) Differential contributions of vision, touch and muscle proprioception to the coding of hand movements. PLoS One 8:e62475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062475 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bock O, Pipereit K, Mierau A (2007) A method to reversibly degrade proprioceptive feedback in research on human motor control. J Neurosci Methods 160:246–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756. doi: 10.1038/35784 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins DF, Prochazka A (1996) Movement illusions evoked by ensemble cutaneous input from the dorsum of the human hand. J Physiol 496:857–871CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cordo P, Gurfinkel VS, Bevan L, Kerr GK (1995) Proprioceptive consequences of tendon vibration during movement. J Neurophysiol 74:1675–1688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Costantini M, Haggard P (2007) The rubber hand illusion: sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Conscious Cogn 16:229–240. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Formaggio E, Storti SF, Galazzo IB et al (2013) Modulation of event-related desynchronization in robot-assisted hand performance: brain oscillatory changes in active, passive and imagined movements. J Neuroeng Rehabil 10:24. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-10-24 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fourneret P, Jeannerod M (1998) Limited conscious monitoring of motor performance in normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 36:1133–1140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gandevia SC, Smith JL, Crawford M, Proske U, Taylor JL (2006) Motor commands contribute to human position sense. J Physiol 571:703–710CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin G, Mccloskey D, Matthews P (1972) The contribution of muscle afferents to keslesthesia shown by vibration induced illusions of movement and by the effects of paralysing joint afferents. Brain 95:705–748. doi: 10.1093/brain/95.4.705 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Guerraz M, Provost S, Narison R et al (2012) Integration of visual and proprioceptive afferents in kinesthesia. Neuroscience 223:258–268. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.07.059 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall LA, Mccloskey DI (1983) Detections of movements imposed on finger, elbow and shoulder joints. J Physiol 335:519–533CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hay JC, Pick JHL (1966) Visual and proprioceptive adaptation to optical displacement of the visual stimulus. J Exp Psychol 71:150–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes NP, Spence C (2005) Visual bias of unseen hand position with a mirror: spatial and temporal factors. Exp Brain Res 166:489–497. doi: 10.1007/s00221-005-2389-4 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmes NP, Crozier G, Spence C (2004) When mirrors lie: “Visual capture” of arm position impairs reaching performance. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:193–200. doi: 10.3758/CABN.4.2.193 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maravita A, Spence C, Driver J (2003) Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Curr Biol 13:R531–R539. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00449-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mercier C, Sirigu A (2009) Training with virtual visual feedback to alleviate phantom limb pain. Neurorehabilitation Neural Repair 23:587–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Metral M, Blettery B, Bresciani J-P et al (2013) Trying to move your unseen static arm modulates visually-evoked kinesthetic illusion. PLoS One 8:e80360. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080360 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mon-Williams M, Wann JP, Jenkinson M, Rushton K (1997) Synaesthesia in the normal limb. Proc Biol Sci 264:1007–1010. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0139 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pavani F, Spence C, Driver J, Psicologia D (2000) Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychol Sci 11:353–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Proske U, Gandevia SC (2012) The proprioceptive senses: their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiol Rev 92:1651–1697. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00048.2011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Roll JP, Vedel JP, Ribot E (1989) Alteration of proprioceptive messages induced by tendon vibration in man: a microneurographic study. Exp Brain Res 76:213–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Romano D, Bottini G, Maravita A (2013) Perceptual effects of the mirror box training in normal subjects. Restor Neurol Neurosci 31:373–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tastevin J (1937) Starting from Aristotle’s experiment: the artificial displacements of parts of the body are not followed by feeling in these parts or by the sensations which can be produced there. Encephale 32:140–158Google Scholar
  28. Teasdale N, Forget R, Bard C, Paillard J, Fleury M, Lamarre Y (1993) The role of proprioceptive information for the production of isometric forces and for handwriting tasks. Acta Psychol 82:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsuge M, Izumizaki M, Kigawa K et al (2012) Interaction between vibration-evoked proprioceptive illusions and mirror-evoked visual illusions in an arm-matching task. Exp Brain Res 223:541–551. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3281-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Van den Berg FE, Swinnen SP, Wenderoth N (2011) Excitability of the motor cortex ipsilateral to the moving body side depends on spatio-temporal task complexity and hemispheric specialization. PLoS One 6:e17742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017742 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wann JP, Ibrahim SF (1992) Does limb proprioception drift? Exp Brain Res 91:162–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Warren DH (1980) Response factors in intermodality localization under conflict conditions. Percept Psychophys 27:28–32. doi: 10.3758/BF03199902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ziemann U, Hallett M (2001) Hemispheric asymmetry of ipsilateral motor cortex activation during unimanual motor tasks: further evidence for motor dominance. Clin Neurophysiol 112:107–113. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00502-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgane Metral
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marie Chancel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Clémentine Brun
    • 1
  • Marion Luyat
    • 2
  • Anne Kavounoudias
    • 3
  • Michel Guerraz
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.LPNC, CNRSUniv. Savoie Mont BlancChambéryFrance
  2. 2.PSITECUniv. LilleVilleneuve d’AscqFrance
  3. 3.LNIA UMR 7260Aix-Marseille Univ. CNRSMarseilleFrance
  4. 4.Laboratory of Psychology and NeuroCognition, UMR 5105CNRS – University Savoie Mont BlancChambery CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations