Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 234, Issue 5, pp 1163–1174 | Cite as

Agency elicits body-ownership: proprioceptive drift toward a synchronously acting external proxy

  • Tomohisa AsaiEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Awareness of our own bodies (sense of body-ownership) and actions (sense of agency) is fundamental for self-consciousness. In the rubber hand illusion, watching a rubber hand being stroked synchronously as one’s own unseen hand is also stroked causes the observer to attribute the rubber hand to their own body. The findings of the series of experiments reported here suggest that body-ownership, measured using proprioceptive drift, is elicited by the external acting proxy that drives the sense of agency. While participants clasped and unclasped their left hand for 60 s, they focused on video feedback on a monitor in front of them. Proprioceptive drift was observed only under the conditions, including synchronized conditions, where the sense of agency for the acting proxy occurred, suggesting an essential interaction between body-ownership and agency.

Keywords

Body-ownership Agency Proprioceptive drift Self-consciousness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted at Chiba University and supported by a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellowship (22-415). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

221_2015_4231_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (95 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 94 kb)

References

  1. Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (2003) Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc Biol Sci 270(1523):1499–1506CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Asai T (2015) Illusory body-ownership entails automatic compensative movement: for the unified representation between body and action. Exp Brain Res 233(3):777–785. doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-4153-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Asai T, Mao Z, Sugimori E, Tanno Y (2011) Rubber hand illusion, empathy, and schizotypal experiences in terms of self-other representations. Conscious Cogn 20:1744–1750. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.02.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Asai T, Tanno Y (2013) Why must we attribute our own action to ourselves? Auditory hallucination like-experiences as the results both from the explicit self-other attribution and implicit regulation in speech. Psychiatry Res 207(3):179–188. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.09.055  
  5. Asai T, Tanno Y (2007) The relationship between the sense of self-agency and schizotypal personality traits. J Mot Behav 39:162–168. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.39.3.162-168 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Asai T, Tanno Y (2008) Highly schizotypal students have a weaker sense of self-agency. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 62:115–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2007.01768.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Asai T, Sugimori E, Tanno Y (2008) Schizotypal personality traits and prediction of one’s own movements in motor control: what causes an abnormal sense of agency? Conscious Cogn 17:1131–1142. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.04.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bays PM, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2005) Perception of the consequences of self-action is temporally tuned and event driven. Curr biol CB 15:1125–1128. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bekrater-Bodmann R, Foell J, Diers M, Flor H (2012) The perceptual and neuronal stability of the rubber hand illusion across contexts and over time. Brain Res 1452:130–139. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.03.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Blakemore SJ, Smith J, Steel R, Johnstone CE, Frith CD (2000) The perception of self-produced sensory stimuli in patients with auditory hallucinations and passivity experiences: evidence for a breakdown in self-monitoring. Psychol Med 30(5):1131–1139Google Scholar
  11. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756. doi: 10.1038/35784 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambon V, Haggard P (2012) Sense of control depends on fluency of action selection, not motor performance. Cognition 125:441–451. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chambon V, Wenke D, Fleming SM, Prinz W, Haggard P (2013) An Online Neural Substrate for Sense of Agency. Cereb Cortex 23:1031–1037. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs059 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Daprati E, Franck N, Georgieff N, Proust J, Pacherie E, Dalery J, Jeannerod M (1997) Looking for the agent: an investigation into consciousness of action and self-consciousness in schizophrenic patients. Cognition 65:71–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. David N, Newen A, Vogeley K (2008) The “sense of agency” and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms. Conscious Cogn 17:523–534. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.03.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dummer T, Picot-Annand A, Neal T, Moore C (2009) Movement and the rubber hand illusion. Perception 38:271–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Eliades SJ, Wang X (2008) Neural substrates of vocalization feedback monitoring in primate auditory cortex. Nature 453(7198):1102–1106. doi: 10.1038/nature06910 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Farrer C, Bouchereau M, Jeannerod M, Franck N (2008a) Effect of distorted visual feedback on the sense of agency. Behav Neurol 19:53–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Farrer C, Frey SH, Van Horn JD, Tunik E, Turk D, Inati S, Grafton ST (2008b) The angular gyrus computes action awareness representations. Cereb Cortex 18:254–261. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhm050 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Folegatti A, Farne A, Salemme R, de Vignemont F (2012) The Rubber Hand Illusion: two’s a company, but three’s a crowd. Conscious Cogn 21:799–812. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2012.02.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Franck N, Farrer C, Georgieff N, Marie-Cardine M, Dalery J, d’Amato T, Jeannerod M (2001) Defective recognition of one’s own actions in patients with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 158:454–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallagher II (2000) Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci 4:14–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Giummarra MJ, Fitzgibbon BM, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Nicholls ME, Gibson SJ, Bradshaw JL (2010) Ouch! My phantom leg jumps/hurts when you stab “my” virtual hand. Perception 39:1396–1407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Haggard P (2005) Conscious intention and motor cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 9:290–295. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Haggard P, Clark S, Kalogeras J (2002) Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nat Neurosci 5(4):382–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hagni K, Eng K, Hepp-Reymond MC, Holper L, Keisker B, Siekierka E, Kiper DC (2008) Observing virtual arms that you imagine are yours increases the galvanic skin response to an unexpected threat. PLoS One 3:e3082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003082 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kalckert A, Ehrsson HH (2012) Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: a dissociation of ownership and agency. Fron Hum Neurosci 6:40. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040 Google Scholar
  29. Kammers MP, de Vignemont F, Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC (2009) The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia 47:204–211. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.07.028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kennett S, Taylor-Clarke M, Haggard P (2001) Noninformative vision improves the spatial resolution of touch in humans. Curr biol CB 11:1188–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ladavas E, Serino A (2010) How the sense of body influences the sense of touch. In: Reuter-Lorenz PA, Baynes K, Mangun GR, Phelps EA (eds) The cognitive neuroscience of mind: a tribute to Michael S. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (USA), GazzanigaGoogle Scholar
  32. Lloyd DM (2007) Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand. Brain Cogn 64(1):104–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Longo MR, Schuur F, Kammers MP, Tsakiris M, Haggard P (2008) What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition 107:978–998. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Miall RC, Wolpert DM (1996) Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Netw 9:1265–1279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Miyazaki M, Hiraki K (2006) Delayed intermodal contingency affects young children’s recognition of their current self. Child Dev 77:736–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Newport R, Pearce R, Preston C (2010) Fake hands in action: embodiment and control of supernumerary limbs. Experimental brain research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Experimentation cerebrale 204:385–395. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-2104-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen TI (1963) Volition: a new experimental approach. Scand J Psychol 4:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ocklenburg S, Rüther N, Peterburs J, Pinnow M, Güntürkün O (2011) Laterality in the rubber hand illusion. Laterality 16:174–187. doi: 10.1080/13576500903483515 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Petkova VI, Ehrsson HH (2009) When right feels left: referral of touch and ownership between the hands. PLoS One 4:e6933. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006933 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Preston C, Newport R (2011) Evidence for dissociable representations for body image and body schema from a patient with visual neglect. Neurocase 17(6):473–479. doi: 10.1080/13554794.2010.532504 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rohde M, Di Luca M, Ernst MO (2011) The Rubber Hand Illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS One 6:e21659. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021659 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Sanchez-Vives MV, Spanlang B, Frisoli A, Bergamasco M, Slater M (2010) Virtual hand illusion induced by visuomotor correlations. PLoS One 5:e10381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010381 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Sato A, Yasuda A (2005) Illusion of sense of self-agency: discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self-agency, but not the sense of self-ownership. Cognition 94:241–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Schutz-Bosbach S, Tausche P, Weiss C (2009) Roughness perception during the rubber hand illusion. Brain Cogn 70:136–144. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwabe L, Blanke O (2007) Cognitive neuroscience of ownership and agency. Conscious Cogn 16:661–666. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.07.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Shimada S, Fukuda K, Hiraki K (2009) Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback. PLoS One 4:e6185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006185 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Shimada S, Qi Y, Hiraki K (2010) Detection of visual feedback delay in active and passive self-body movements. Experimental brain research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Experimentation cerebrale 201:359–364. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-2028-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Sugimori E, Asai T (2014) Attribution of movement: Potential links between subjective reports of agency and output monitoring. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 1–17Google Scholar
  49. Sugimori E, Asai T, Tanno Y (2011) Sense of agency over speech and proneness to auditory hallucinations: the reality-monitoring paradigm. Q J Exp Psychol 64:169–185. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.489261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sugimori E, Asai T, Tanno Y (2013) The potential link between sense of agency and output monitoring over speech. Conscious Cogn 22:360–374. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2012.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Tajadura-Jiménez A, Väljamäe A, Toshima I, Kimura T, Tsakiris M, Kitagawa N (2012) Action sounds recalibrate perceived tactile distance. Curr Biol 22(13):R516–R517. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.04.028
  52. Taylor-Clarke M, Kennett S, Haggard P (2002) Vision modulates somatosensory cortical processing. Curr biol CB 12:233–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Toyomura A, Omori T (2005) Auditory feedback control during a sentence-reading task: effect of other’s voice. Acoust Sci Technol 26:358–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Troje NF (2002) Decomposing biological motion: a framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. J vision 2:371–387. doi: 10.1167/2.5.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tsakiris M (2010) My body in the brain: a neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 48:703–712. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsakiris M, Haggard P (2005) The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:80–91. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Tsakiris M, Prabhu G, Haggard P (2006) Having a body versus moving your body: how agency structures body-ownership. Conscious Cogn 15:423–432. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2005.09.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Tsakiris M, Hesse MD, Boy C, Haggard P, Fink GR (2007a) Neural signatures of body ownership: a sensory network for bodily self-consciousness. Cereb Cortex 17:2235–2244. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhl131 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Tsakiris M, Schutz-Bosbach S, Gallagher S (2007b) On agency and body-ownership: phenomenological and neurocognitive reflections. Conscious Cogn 16:645–660. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.05.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Tsakiris M, Carpenter L, James D, Fotopoulou A (2010a) Hands only illusion: multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects. Experimental brain research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Experimentation cerebrale 204:343–352. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-2039-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Tsakiris M, Longo MR, Haggard P (2010b) Having a body versus moving your body: neural signatures of agency and body-ownership. Neuropsychologia 48:2740–2749. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. van den Bos E, Jeannerod M (2002) Sense of body and sense of action both contribute to self-recognition. Cognition 85:177–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Weiss C, Herwig A, Schütz-Bosbach S (2011) The self in action effects: selective attenuation of self-generated sounds. Cognition 121(2):207–218. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.011
  64. Weiss C, Tsakiris M, Haggard P, Schutz-Bosbach S (2014) Agency in the sensorimotor system and its relation to explicit action awareness. Neuropsychologia 52:82–92. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Weiss C, Schütz-Bosbach S (2012) Vicarious action preparation does not result in sensory attenuation of auditory action effects. Conscious Cogn 21(4):1654–1661. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2012.08.010
  66. Wolpert DM (1997) Computational approaches to motor control. Trends Cogn Sci 1:209–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995) An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science 269:1880–1882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Zopf R, Savage G, Williams MA (2013) The crossmodal congruency task as a means to obtain an objective behavioral measure in the rubber hand illusion paradigm. J Vis Exp 77:e50530. doi: 10.3791/50530 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Information Science LaboratoryNTT Communication Science LaboratoriesAtsugi-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations