Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 233, Issue 11, pp 3153–3161 | Cite as

Multisensory distortions of the hand have differential effects on tactile perception

  • A. Treshi-marie Perera
  • Roger Newport
  • Kirsten J. McKenzieEmail author
Research Article


Research has suggested that altering the perceived shape and size of the body image significantly affects perception of somatic events. The current study investigated how multisensory illusions applied to the body altered tactile perception using the somatic signal detection task. Thirty-one healthy volunteers were asked to report the presence or absence of near-threshold tactile stimuli delivered to the index finger under three multisensory illusion conditions: stretched finger, shrunken finger and detached finger, as well as a veridical baseline condition. Both stretching and shrinking the stimulated finger enhanced correct touch detections; however, the mechanisms underlying this increase were found to be different. In contrast, the detached appearance reduced false touch reports—possibly due to reduced tactile noise, as a result of attention being directed to the tip of the finger only. These findings suggest that distorted representations of the body could have different modulatory effects on attention to touch and provide a link between perceived body representation and somatosensory decision-making.


Tactile perception Multisensory illusions MIRAGE Somatic signal detection task Signal detection 



Work on this project by KJM and ATP was supported by an eScience Fund Grant [06-02-12-SF0158] from the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.


  1. Barsky A, Goodson J, Lane R, Cleary P (1988) The amplification of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med 50(5):510–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsky A, Wyshak G, Klerman G (1990) The somatosensory amplification scale and its relationship to hypochondriasis. J Psychiatr Res 24(4):323–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruno N, Bertamini M (2010) Haptic perception after a change in hand size. Neuropsychologia 48(6):1853–1856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornsweet T (1962) The staircase-method in psychophysics. Am J Psychol 75(3):485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. de Vignemont F, Ehrsson H, Haggard P (2005) Bodily illusions modulate tactile perception. Curr Biol 15(14):1286–1290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Deary V, Chalder T, Sharpe M (2007) The cognitive behavioural model of medically unexplained symptoms: a theoretical and empirical review. Clin Psychol Rev 27(7):781–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415(6870):429–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Frederiks J (1963) Macrosomatognosia and microsomatognosia. Psychiatr Neurol Neurochir 66:531–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Haggard P, Jundi S (2009) Rubber hand illusions and size–weight illusions: self-representation modulates representation of external objects. Perception 38(12):1796–1803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris J, Arabzadeh E, Moore C, Clifford C (2007) Noninformative vision causes adaptive changes in tactile sensitivity. J Neurosci 27(27):7136–7140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson R, Burton P, Ro T (2006) Visually induced feelings of touch. Brain Res 1073–1074:398–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jousmäki V, Hari R (1998) Parchment-skin illusion: sound-biased touch. Curr Biol 8(6):R190–R191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kennett S, Taylor-Clarke M, Haggard P (2001) Noninformative vision improves the spatial resolution of touch in humans. Curr Biol 11(15):1188–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Leker RR, Karni A, River Y (1996) Microsomatoagnosia: whole body schema illusion as part of an epileptic aura. Acta Neurol Scand 94(6):383–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lloyd D, Mason L, Brown R, Poliakoff E (2008) Development of a paradigm for measuring somatic disturbance in clinical populations with medically unexplained symptoms. J Psychosom Res 64(1):21–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Macmillan N, Creelman C (1991) Detection theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (England)Google Scholar
  18. Mancini F, Longo M, Kammers M, Haggard P (2011) Visual distortion of body size modulates pain perception. Psychol Sci 22(3):325–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mauguiere F, Courjon J (1978) Somatosensory epilepsy. A review of 127 cases. Brain 101(2):307–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. McKenzie KJ, Poliakoff E, Brown R, Lloyd D (2010) Now you feel it, now you don’t: how robust is the phenomenon of illusory tactile experience? Perception 39:839–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mirams L, Poliakoff E, Brown R, Lloyd D (2010) Vision of the body increases interference on the somatic signal detection task. Exp Brain Res 202(4):787–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Moseley L, Wiech K (2009) The effect of tactile discrimination training is enhanced when patients watch the reflected image of their unaffected limb during training. Pain 144(3):314–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Moseley G, Parsons T, Spence C (2008a) Visual distortion of a limb modulates the pain and swelling evoked by movement. Curr Biol 18(22):R1047–R1048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Moseley L, Zalucki N, Wiech K (2008b) Tactile discrimination, but not tactile stimulation alone, reduces chronic limb pain. Pain 137(3):600–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Newport R, Preston C (2010) Pulling the finger off disrupts agency, embodiment and peripersonal space. Perception 39:1296–1298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Newport R, Preston C, Pearce R, Holton R (2009) Eye rotation does not contribute to shifts in subjective straight ahead: implications for prism adaptation and neglect. Neuropsychologia 47(8–9):2008–2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Newport R, Pearce R, Preston C (2010) Fake hands in action: embodiment and control of supernumerary limbs. Exp Brain Res 204(3):385–395PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nichols A, Maner J (2008) The good-subject effect: investigating participant demand characteristics. J Gen Psychol 135(2):151–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Oldfield R (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pavani F, Zampini M (2007) The role of hand size in the fake-hand illusion paradigm. Perception 36(2003):1547–1554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Perez-Marcos D, Sanchez-Vives M, Slater M (2011) Is my hand connected to my body? The impact of body continuity and arm alignment on the virtual hand illusion. Cogn Neurodyn 6(4):295–305PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Press C, Taylor-Clarke M, Kennett S, Haggard P (2004) Visual enhancement of touch in spatial body representation. Exp Brain Res 154(2):238–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Preston C, Newport R (2011) Analgesic effects of multisensory illusions in osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 50(12):2314–2315PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Preston C, Newport R (2012) How long is your arm? Using multisensory illusions to modify body image from the third person perspective. Perception 41:247–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramachandran V, Hirstein W (1998) The perception of phantom limbs. The D. O. Hebb lecture. Brain 121(9):1603–1630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramachandran V, Brang D, McGeoch P (2009) Size reduction using mirror visual feedback (MVF) reduces phantom pain. Neurocase 15(5):357–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rhodes D, Schwartz G (1981) Lateralized sensitivity to vibrotactile stimulation: individual differences revealed by interaction of threshold and signal detection tasks. Neuropsychologia 19(6):831–835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rief W, Barsky A (2005) Psychobiological perspectives on somatoform disorders. Psychoneuroendocrinology 30(10):996–1002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rief W, Broadbent E (2007) Explaining medically unexplained symptoms-models and mechanisms. Clin Psychol Rev 27(7):821–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson D, Podoll K (2000) Macrosomatognosia and microsomatognosia in migraine art. Acta Neurol Scand 101(6):413–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Romano D, Maravita A (2014) The visual size of one’s own hand modulates pain anticipation and perception. Neuropsychologia 57:93–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schaefer M, Heinze H, Rotte M (2005) Seeing the hand being touched modulates the primary somatosensory cortex. Neuroreport 16(10):1101–1105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaefer M, Flor H, Heinze H, Rotte M (2006) Dynamic modulation of the primary somatosensory cortex during seeing and feeling a touched hand. Neuroimage 29(2):587–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Serino A, Farnè A, Rinaldesi M, Haggard P, Ládavas E (2007) Can vision of the body ameliorate impaired somatosensory function? Neuropsychologia 45(5):1101–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Snodgrass J, Corwin J (1988) Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia. J Exp Psychol Gen 117(1):34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Southwick S, Bremner J, Rasmusson A, Morgan C, Arnsten A, Charney D (1999) Role of norepinephrine in the pathophysiology and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Biol Psychiatry 46(9):1192–1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Spielberger C, Gorssuch R, Lushene P, Vagg P, Jacobs G (1983) Manual for the State–Trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  48. Stanton T, Lin C, Bray H, Smeets R, Taylor D, Law R, Moseley G (2013) Tactile acuity is disrupted in osteoarthritis but is unrelated to disruptions in motor imagery performance. Rheumatology 52(8):1509–1519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Steimer T (2002) The biology of fear- and anxiety-related behaviors. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 4(3):231–249PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tieri G, Tidoni E, Pavone E, Aglioti S (2015) Mere observation of body discontinuity affects perceived ownership and vicarious agency over a virtual hand. Exp Brain Res 233(4):1247–1259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Watson D, Pennebaker J (1989) Health complaints, stress, and distress: exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychol Rev 96(2):234–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Treshi-marie Perera
    • 1
  • Roger Newport
    • 2
  • Kirsten J. McKenzie
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of Nottingham Malaysia CampusSemenyihMalaysia
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of Nottingham UK CampusNottinghamUK
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of LincolnLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations