| [1] | Kammers MP, Kootker JA, Hogendoorn H, Dijkerman HC (2010) How many motoric body representations can we grasp? Experimental Brain Research 202: 203–212. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-2124-7
|
| [2] | Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE (2004) That's my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305: 875–877. doi: 10.1126/science.1097011
|
| [3] | Gallagher S (2005) How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
|
| [4] | Paillard J (1999) Body schema and body image: a double dissociation in deafferented patients. In: Gantchev GN, Mori S, Massion J, editors, Motor control, today and tomorrow, Moscow: Izdatelstvo. pp. 197？214.
|
| [5] | Haggard P, Wolpert DM (2005) Disorders of body schema. In: Freund HJ, Jeannerod M, Hallett M, Leiguarda R, editors, Higher-order motor disorders: From neuroanatomy and neurobiology to clinical neurology, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 261？271.
|
| [6] | Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391: 756.
|
| [7] | Farnè A, Pavani F, Meneghello F, Làdavas E (2000) Left tactile extinction following visual stimulation of a rubber hand. Brain 123: 2350–2360. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.11.2350
|
| [8] | Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (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. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2364
|
| [9] | Ehrsson HH, Wiech K, Weiskopf N, Dolan RJ, Passingham RE (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. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610011104
|
| [10] | 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. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80
|
| [11] | Folegatti A, de Vignemont F, Pavani F, Rossetti Y, Farnè A (2009) Losing one's hand: visual-proprioceptive conflict affects touch perception. PLoS One 4: e6920. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006920
|
| [12] | Holmes NP, Spence C (2004) The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cognitive Processing 5: 94–105. doi: 10.1007/s10339-004-0013-3
|
| [13] | Kalckert A, Ehrsson HH (2012) Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: dissociation of ownership and agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6: 40. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040
|
| [14] | Makin TR, Holmes NP, Ehrsson HH (2008) On the other hand: Dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behavioural Brain Research 191: 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.02.041
|
| [15] | Pavani F, Zampini M (2007) The role of hand size in the fake-hand illusion paradigm. Perception-London 36: 1547. doi: 10.1068/p5853
|
| [16] | 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: e21659. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021659
|
| [17] | Austen EL, Soto-Faraco S, Enns JT, Kingstone A (2004) Mislocalizations of touch to a fake hand. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 4: 170–181. doi: 10.3758/cabn.4.2.170
|
| [18] | Pavani F, Spence C, Driver J (2000) Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science 11: 353–359. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00270
|
| [19] | Lloyd D, Morrison I, Roberts N (2006) Role for human posterior parietal cortex in visual processing of aversive objects in peripersonal space. Journal of Neurophysiology 95: 205–214. doi: 10.1152/jn.00614.2005
|
| [20] | Preston C (2013) The role of distance from the body and distance from the real hand in ownership and disownership during the rubber hand illusion. Acta psychologica 142: 177–183. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.12.005
|
| [21] | Ide M (2013) The effect of “anatomical plausibility” of hand angle on the rubber hand illusion. Percept 42: 103–111. doi: 10.1068/p7322
|
| [22] | Costantini M, Haggard P (2007) The rubber hand illusion: Sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Consciousness and Cognition 16: 229–240. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.001
|
| [23] | Zopf R, Truong S, Finkbeiner M, Friedman J, Williams MA (2011) Viewing and feeling touch modulates hand position for reaching. Neuropsychologia 49: 1287–1293. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.012
|
| [24] | Graziano MS, Botvinick MM (2002) How the brain represents the body: Insights from neurophysiology and psychology. In Prinz W, Hommel B, editors, Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 136？157.
|
| [25] | Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415: 429–433. doi: 10.1038/415429a
|
| [26] | Ehrenfeld S, Butz MV (2013) The modular modality frame model: Continuous body state estimation and plausibility-weighted information fusion. Biological Cybernetics 107: 61–82. doi: 10.1007/s00422-012-0526-2
|
| [27] | Ehrenfeld S, Herbort O, Butz MV (2013) Modular neuron-based body estimation: maintaining consistency over different limbs, modalities, and frames of reference. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 7.
|
| [28] | Lackner JR (1988) Some proprioceptive influences on the perceptual representation of the body shape and orientation. Brain 111: 281–297. doi: 10.1093/brain/111.2.281
|
| [29] | Heed T, Gründler M, Rinkleib J, Rudzik FH, Collins T, et al. (2011) Visual information and rubber hand embodiment differentially affect reach-to-grasp actions. Acta psychologica 138: 263–271. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.07.003
|
| [30] | Snijders HJ, Holmes NP, Spence C (2007) Direction-dependent integration of vision and proprioception in reaching under the influence of the mirror illusion. Neuropsychologia 45: 496 – 505.
|
| [31] | Riemer M, Kleinb？hl D, H？lzl R, Trojan J (2013) Action and perception in the rubber hand illusion. Experimental Brain Research 229: 383–393. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3374-3
|
