Psychological Research

, Volume 81, Issue 3, pp 549–559 | Cite as

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

  • Roman LiepeltEmail author
  • Thomas Dolk
  • Bernhard Hommel
Original Article


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.


Smart Phone Tactile Stimulation Wooden Block Multisensory Integration Rubber Hand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank Florian Frings and Claudia Nowak for help with data acquisition.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


  1. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassolino, M., Serino, A., Ubaldi, S., & Làdavas, E. (2010). Everyday use of the computer mouse extends peripersonal space representation. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 803–811.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertelson, P., & Radeau, M. (1981). Cross-modal bias and perceptual fusion with auditory-visual spatial discordance. Perception and Psychophysics, 29(6), 578–584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature, 391(6669), 756.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes, N. P., & Spence, C. (2004). The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cognitive Processing, 5(2), 94–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. James, W. (1890/1981). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  11. Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2012). Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: A dissociation of ownership and agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 40. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Lenggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T., & Blanke, O. (2007). Video ergo sum: Manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science, 317(5841), 1096–1099.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Longo, M. R., Schuur, F., Kammers, M. P., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition, 107(3), 978–998.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Ma, K., & Hommel, B. (2015a). Body-ownership for actively operated non-corporeal objects. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 75–86. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.06.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ma, K., & Hommel, B. (2015b). The role of agency for perceived ownership in the virtual hand illusion. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 277–288. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.07.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Macaluso, E., & Maravita, A. (2010). The representation of space near the body through touch and vision. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 782–795.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maravita, A., & Iriki, A. (2004). Tools for the body (schema). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 79–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2013). Confidence intervals for two sample means: Calculation, interpretation, and a few simple rules. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 74–80. doi: 10.2478/v10053-008-0133-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Riemer, M., Bublatzky, F., Trojan, J., & Alpers, G. W. (2015). Defensive activation during the rubber hand illusion: Ownership versus proprioceptive drift. Biological Psychology, 109, 86–92. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.04.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2004). Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsakiris, M. (2010). My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 703–712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tsakiris, M., Prabhu, G., & Haggard, P. (2006). Having a body versus moving your body: How agency structures body-ownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 15(2), 423–432. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2005.09.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Psychology & Otto Creutzfeldt Center for Cognitive and Behavioral NeuroscienceUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  3. 3.Cognitive Psychology Unit, Leiden Institute for Brain and CognitionLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations