Cognitive Neurodynamics

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 295–305 | Cite as

Is my hand connected to my body? The impact of body continuity and arm alignment on the virtual hand illusion

  • Daniel Perez-Marcos
  • Maria V. Sanchez-Vives
  • Mel SlaterEmail author
Research Article


When a rubber hand is placed on a table top in a plausible position as if part of a person’s body, and is stroked synchronously with the person’s corresponding hidden real hand, an illusion of ownership over the rubber hand can occur (Botvinick and Cohen 1998). A similar result has been found with respect to a virtual hand portrayed in a virtual environment, a virtual hand illusion (Slater et al. 2008). The conditions under which these illusions occur have been the subject of considerable study. Here we exploited the flexibility of virtual reality to examine four contributory factors: visuo-tactile synchrony while stroking the virtual and the real arms, body continuity, alignment between the real and virtual arms, and the distance between them. We carried out three experiments on a total of 32 participants where these factors were varied. The results show that the subjective illusion of ownership over the virtual arm and the time to evoke this illusion are highly dependent on synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation and on connectivity of the virtual arm with the rest of the virtual body. The alignment between the real and virtual arms and the distance between these were less important. It was found that proprioceptive drift was not a sensitive measure of the illusion, but was only related to the distance between the real and virtual arms.


Virtual hand illusion Rubber hand illusion Body perception Virtual reality Body representation Multisensory integration Virtual environments 



We thank Bernhard Spanlang for providing the avatar library (HALCA) and Jean-Marie Normand for his help during the experiments. Konstantina Kilteni provided resources that helped in the literature review. This research was supported by FP7 EU collaborative project BEAMING (248620) and the ERC project TRAVERSE (227985).

Supplementary material

11571_2011_9178_MOESM1_ESM.doc (96 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 96 kb)


  1. Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (2003) Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 270:1499–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Costantini M, Haggard P (2007) The rubber hand illusion: sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Conscious Cogn 16:229–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Durgin FH, Evans L, Dunphy N, Klostermann S, Simmons K (2007) Rubber hands feel the touch of light. Psychol Sci 18:152–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE (2004) That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305:875–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farne A, Pavani F, Meneghello F, Ladavas E (2000) Left tactile extinction following visual stimulation of a rubber hand. Brain 123(Pt 11):2350–2360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillies M, Spanlang B (2010) Comparing and evaluating real-time character engines for virtual environments. Presence-Teleop Virt 19(2):95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haans A, Ijsselsteijn WA, de Kort YAW (2008) The effect of similarities in skin texture and hand shape on perceived ownership of a fake limb. Body Image 5:389–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holland PW, Welsch RE (1977) Robust regression using iteratively reweighted least-squares. Commun Stat Theory Methods 6:813–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 68:685–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jarque CM, Bera AK (1980) Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals. Econ Lett 6:255–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuhl SA, Thompson WB, Creem-Regehr SH (2009) HMD calibration and its effects on distance judgments. ACM Trans Appl Percept 6:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lloyd D (2007) Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand. Brain Cogn 64:104–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohler BJ, Creem-Regehr SH, Thompson WB, Bülthoff HH (2010) The effect of viewing a self-avatar on distance judgments in an HMD-based virtual environment. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 19:230–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pavani F, Spence C, Driver J (2000) Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychol Sci 11:353–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perez-Marcos D, Slater M, Sanchez-Vives MV (2009) Inducing a virtual hand ownership illusion through a brain-computer interface. Neuroreport 20:589–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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:e21659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sanchez-Vives MV, Spanlang B, Frisoli A, Bergamasco M, Slater M (2010) Virtual hand illusion induced by visuomotor correlations. PLoS ONE 5:e10381. doi: 10310.11371/journal.pone.0010381 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Slater M, Perez-Marcos D, Ehrsson HH, Sanchez-Vives M (2008) Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion. Front Hum Neurosci 2. doi: 10.3389/neuro.3309.3006.2008
  21. Slater M, Spanlang B, Corominas D (2010a) Simulating virtual environments within virtual environments as the basis for a psychophysics of presence. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) - Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2010. Paper 92Google Scholar
  22. Slater M, Spanlang B, Sanchez-Vives M, Blanke O (2010b) First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLos ONE e10564. doi:10510.11371/journal.pone.0010564
  23. Tecchia F, Carrozzino M, Bacinelli S, Rossi F, Vercelli D, Marino G, Gasparello P, Bergamasco M (2010) A flexible framework for wide-spectrum vr development. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 19:302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsakiris M, Haggard P (2005) The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:80–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsakiris M, Prabhu G, Haggard P (2006) Having a body versus moving your body: how agency structures body-ownership. Conscious Cogn 15:423–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zopf R, Savage G, Williams MA (2010) Crossmodal congruency measures of lateral distance effects on the rubber hand illusion. Neuropsychologia 48:713–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Perez-Marcos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria V. Sanchez-Vives
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mel Slater
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.IDIBAPS (Institut de Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.EVENT Lab, Departament de Personalitat, Avaluació i Tractaments Psicològics, Facultat de PsicologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.ICREA (Institut Catalá de Recerca i Estudis Avançats)BarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations