All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Psychology  2018 

Inferior Parietal Lobe Activity in Visuo-Motor Integration during the Robot Hand Illusion

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.915174, PP. 2996-3006

Keywords: Robot Hand Illusion, Sense of Ownership, Sense of Agency, Inferior Parietal Lobe

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


The robot hand illusion (RoHI) is the participant’s illusion of the self-ownership and the self-agency of a robot hand that appears to be moving consistently with their own hand, and feel as if the robot hand belongs to them. Mismatching between motor and visual information disrupt the effect of RoHI respect to the robot hand. In our previous study, we found that participants felt that the virtual hand was their own when the visual feedback was delayed by less than 200 ms. Moreover, although they did not feel that the virtual hand was their own, the participants felt that they could control the virtual hand even with a visual delay of 300 - 500 ms. Here, we used near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to investigate brain activity associated with the RoHI under different delayed visual feedback conditions (100 ms, 400 ms, and 700 ms). We found significant activation in the supramarginal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus in the 100 ms feedback delay condition. An ANOVA indicated that this activation was significantly different from that in other conditions (p < 0.01). These results demonstrate that activity in the inferior parietal cortex was modulated by the delay between the motor command and the visual feedback regarding the movement of the robot hand. We propose that the inferior parietal lobe is essential for integrating motor and visual information that enables one to distinguish their own body from those of others.


[1]  Alimardani, M., Nishio, S., & Ishiguro, H. (2013). Humanlike Robot Hands Controlled by Brain Activity Arouse Illusion of Ownership in Operators. Scientific Reports, 3, 2396.
[2]  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, 1499-1506.
[3]  Bekrater-Bodmann, R., Foell, J., Diers, M., Kamping, S., Rance, M., Kirsch, P., Trojan, J., Fuchs, X., Bach, F., Çakmak, H. K., Maaß, H., & Flor, H. (2014). The Importance of Synchrony and Temporal Order of Visual and Tactile Input for Illusory Limb Ownership Experiences—An FMRI Study Applying Virtual Reality. PLoS ONE, 9, e87013.
[4]  Blakemore, S. J., Rees, G., & Frith, C. D. (1998). How Do We Predict the Consequences of Our Actions? A Functional Imaging Study. Neuropsychologia, 36, 521-529.
[5]  Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber Hands “Feel” Touch That Eyes See. Nature, 391, 756-756.
[6]  Brozzoli, C., Gentile, G., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2012). That’s near My Hand! Parietal and Premotor Coding of Hand-Centered Space Contributes to Localization and Self-Attribution of the Hand. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 14573-14582.
[7]  Caspar, E. A., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2014). The Relationship between Human Agency and Embodiment. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 226-236.
[8]  Caspar, E. A., De Beir, A., Magalhaes De Saldanha Da Gama, P. A., Yernaux, F., Cleeremans, A., & Vanderborght, B. (2015). New Frontiers in the Rubber Hand Experiment: When a Robotic Hand Becomes one’s Own. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 744-755.
[9]  Chaminade, T., & Decety, J. (2002). Leader or Follower? Involvement of the Inferior Parietal Lobule in Agency. Neuroreport, 13, 1975-1978.
[10]  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.
[11]  Farrer, C., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Experiencing Oneself vs. Another Person as Being the Cause of an Action: The Neural Correlates of the Experience of Agency. Neuroimage, 15, 596-603.
[12]  Farrer, C., Frey, S. H., Van Horn, J. D., Tunik, E., Turk, D., Inati, S., & Grafton, S. T. (2008). The Angular Gyrus Computes Action Awareness Representations. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 254-261.
[13]  Fink, G. R., Marshall, J. C., Halligan, P. W., Frith, C. D., Driver, J., Frackowiak, R. S., & Dolan, R. J. (1999). The Neural Consequences of Conflict between Intention and the Senses. Brain, 122, 497-512.
[14]  Gentile, G., Guterstam, A., Brozzoli, C., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2013). Disintegration of Multisensory Signals from the Real Hand Reduces Default Limb Self-Attribution: An fMRI Study. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 13350-13366.
[15]  Ismail, M. A., & Shimada, S. (2016). “Robot” Hand Illusion under Delayed Visual Feedback: Relationship between the Senses of Ownership and Agency. PLoS One, 11, e0159619.
[16]  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.
[17]  Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2014). The Moving Rubber Hand Illusion Revisited: Comparing Movements and Visuotactile Stimulation to Induce Illusory Ownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 26, 117-132.
[18]  Lane, T., Yeh, S. L., Tseng, P., & Chang, A. Y. (2017). Timing Disownership Experiences in the Rubber Hand Illusion. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2, 4.
[19]  Limanowski, J., & Blankenburg, F. (2015). Network Activity Underlying the Illusory Self-Attribution of a Dummy Arm. Human Brain Mapping, 36, 2284-2304.
[20]  Limanowski, J., & Blankenburg, F. (2016). That’s Not Quite Me: Limb Ownership Encoding in the Brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11, 1130-1140.
[21]  Longo, M. R., Schüür, F., Kammers, M. P., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). What Is Embodiment? A Psychometric Approach. Cognition, 107, 978-998.
[22]  Makin, T. R., Holmes, N. P., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008). On the Other Hand: Dummy Hands and Peripersonal Space. Behavioural Brain Research, 191, 1-10.
[23]  Petkova, V. I., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008). If I Were You: Perceptual Illusion of Body Swapping. PLoS ONE, 3, e3832.
[24]  Petkova, V. I., Björnsdotter, M., Gentile, G., Jonsson, T., Li, T. Q., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2011). From Part-to Whole-Body Ownership in the Multisensory Brain. Current Biology, 21, 1118-1122.
[25]  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, e21659.
[26]  Romano, D., Caffa, E., Hernandez-Arieta, A., Brugger, P., & Maravita, A. (2015). The Robot Hand Illusion: Inducing Proprioceptive Drift through Visuo-Motor Congruency. Neuropsychologia, 70, 414-420.
[27]  Sato, Y., Kawase, T., Takano, K., Spence, C., & Kansaku, K. (2017). Body Ownership and Agency Altered by an Electromyographically Controlled Robotic Arm. Royal Society Open Science, 5, 172170.
[28]  Schnell, K., Heekeren, K., Schnitker, R., Daumann, J., Weber, J., Hesselmann, V., Möller-Hartmann, W., Thron, A., & Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E. (2007). An fMRI Approach to Particularize the Frontoparietal Network for Visuomotor Action Monitoring: Detection of Incongruence between Test Subjects’ Actions and Resulting Perceptions. Neuroimage, 34, 332-341.
[29]  Shimada, S., Fukuda, K., & Hiraki, K. (2009). Rubber Hand Illusion under Delayed Visual Feedback. PLoS One, 4, e6185.
[30]  Shimada, S., Hiraki, K., & Oda, I. (2005). The Parietal Role in the Sense of Self-Ownership with Temporal Discrepancy between Visual and Proprioceptive Feedbacks. NeuroImage, 24, 1225-1232.
[31]  Shimada, S., Suzuki, T., Yoda, N., & Hayashi, T. (2014). Relationship between Sensitivity to Visuotactile Temporal Discrepancy and the Rubber Hand Illusion. Neuroscience Research, 85, 33-38.
[32]  Singh, A. K., Okamoto, M., Dan, H., Jurcak, V., & Dan, I. (2005). Spatial Registration of Multichannel Multi-Subject fNIRS Data to MNI Space without MRI. Neuroimage, 27, 842-851.
[33]  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.


comments powered by Disqus