Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 317–339 | Cite as

Embodied experience: A first-person investigation of the rubber hand illusion

  • Elizabeth Lewis
  • Donna M. LloydEmail author
Article

Abstract

Here, we assess the usefulness of first-person methods for the study of embodiment during the rubber hand illusion (RHI). Participants observed a rubber hand being stroked synchronously and asynchronously with their concealed hand after which they made proprioceptive judgments about the location of their hand and completed a self-report questionnaire. A randomly selected cohort was further interviewed during the illusion and their transcripts analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Results showed that the IPA group experienced a more intense embodied experience during the RHI, measured by proprioceptive distortion and self-report. IPA revealed four main themes of embodied experience: recalibration of the body schema; violation of the body schema; multisensory integration; and illusory experience over time. The report of agency was a significant predictor of proprioceptive distortion. This study shows how first-person methodologies can be empirically rigorous and how the introspective interview provides a rich, detailed account of embodied experience.

Keywords

Agency Body schema Embodiment Interpretative phenomenological analysis Proprioceptive drift Rubber hand illusion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sophie Holmes for help with data collection and Martin Farrell for reading an earlier version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Armel, K. C., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2003). Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences, 270, 1499–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature, 391, 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Capelari, E. D. P., Uribe, C., & Brasil-Neto, J. P. (2009). Feeling pain in the rubber hand: Integration of visual, proprioceptive, and painful stimuli. Perception, 38(1), 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dennet, D. C. (1993). Consciousness explained. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Dummer, T., Picot-Annand, A., Neal, T., & Moore, C. (2009). Movement and the rubber hand illusion. Perception, 38(2), 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Durgin, F. H., Evans, L., Dunphy, N., Klostermann, S., & Simmons, K. (2007). Rubber hands feel the touch of light. Psychological Science, 18(2), 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehrsson, H. H., Spence, C., & Passingham, R. E. (2004). That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science, 305, 875–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrsson, H. H., Holmes, N. P., & Passingham, R. E. (2005). Touching a rubber hand: Feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 10564–10573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrsson, H. H., Wiech, K., Weiskopf, N., Dolan, R. J., & Passingham, R. E. (2007). Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 9828–9833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehrsson, H. H., Rosén, B., Stockselius, A., Ragnö, C., Köhler, P., & Lundborg, G. (2008). Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own. Brain, 131, 3443–3452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gallagher, S. (2001). Dimensions of embodiment: Body image and body schema in medical contexts. In K. Toombs (Ed.), Handbook in the Philosophy of Medicine, Vol. 1: Phenomenology and Medicine (pp. 147–175). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Gallagher, S., & Sørensen, J. B. (2006). Experimenting with phenomenology. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haans, A., Ijsselsteijn, W. A., & de Kort, Y. A. W. (2008). The effect of similarities in skin texture and hand shape on perceived ownership of a fake limb. Body Image, 5, 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jack, A., & Roepstorff, A. (2002). Retrospection and cognitive brain mapping: From stimulus-response to script-report. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(8), 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kammers, M. P., de Vignemont, F., Verhagen, L., & Dijkerman, H. C. (2009). The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia, 47, 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanizsa, G. (1979). Organization in vision. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  18. Kitadono, K., & Humphreys, G. (2007). Short-term effects of the 'rubber hand' illusion on aspects of visual neglect. Neurocase, 13, 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lloyd, D. (2007). Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand. Brain and Cognition, 64, 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lloyd, D. M., Shore, D. I., Spence, C., & Calvert, G. A. (2003). Multisensory representation of limb position in human premotor cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 17–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Longo, M. R., Cardozo, S., & Haggard, P. (2008a). Visual enhancement of touch and the bodily self. Consciousness Cognition, 17, 1181–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Longo, M. R., Schüür, F., Kammers, M. P. M., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008b). What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition, 107, 978–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Longo, M. R., Schüür, F., Kammers, M. P. M., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2009). Self awareness and the body image. Acta Psychologica, 132, 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moseley, G. L., Olthof, N., Venema, A., Don, S., Wijers, M., Gallace, A., et al. (2008). Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 1368–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mussap, A. J., & Salton, N. (2006). A ‘rubber-hand’ illusion reveals a relationship between perceptual body image and unhealthy body change. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24, 939–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Overgaard, M., Gallagher, S., & Zoëga Ramsøy, T. (2008). An integration of first-person methodologies in cognitive science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15, 100–120.Google Scholar
  28. Schaefer, M., Flor, H., Heinze, H.-J., & Rotte, M. (2006). Dynamic modulation of the primary somatosensory cortex during seeing and feeling a touched hand. NeuroImage, 29, 587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schütz-Bosbach, S., Tausche, P., & Weiss, C. (2009). Roughness perception during the rubber hand illusion. Brain and Cognition, 70, 136–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shimada, S., Fukuda, K., & Hiraki, K. (2009). Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback. PLoS ONE, 4(7), e6185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harr, & L. U. Langehove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology (pp. 9–26). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology and Health, 11, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Osborn, M. (1997). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and the psychology of health and illness. In L. Yardley (Ed.), Material Discourses of Health and Illness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Sørensen, J. B. (2005). The alien-hand experiment. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2005). The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsakiris, M., Hesse, M. D., Boy, C., Haggard, P., & Fink, G. R. (2007a). Neural signatures of body ownership: a sensory network for bodily self-consciousness. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2235–2244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsakiris, M., Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Gallagher, S. (2007b). On agency and body-ownership: Phenomenological and neurocognitive reflections. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 645–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Psychology, School of Psychological Sciences, Zochonis BuildingUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations