ArticlePloS one2019
Action effect consistency and body ownership in the avatar-Simon task.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Which side do you take? Instruction versus action in resolving frame of reference conflicts.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Through Another's Eyes: Implicit SNARC-like Attention Bias Reveals Allocentric Mapping of Numerical Magnitude.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Seeing through the cat's eyes: evidence of a spontaneous perspective taking process using a non-human avatar.Cognitive processing · 2022Article
- Perspective Taking and Avatar-Self Merging.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Human Cognition in Interaction With Robots: Taking the Robot's Perspective Into Account.Human factors · 2021Article
- Spatial-numerical associations in the presence of an avatar.Psychological research · 2021Article
- Character Customization With Cosmetic Microtransactions in Games: Subjective Experience and Objective Performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- No evidence for automatic response activation with target onset in the avatar-compatibility task.Memory & cognition · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Putting oneself in the shoes of a digital alter ego becomes an increasingly relevant part of our everyday experience. In modern day psychology, these interactions can be examined within the frameworks of visual perspective taking and body ownership. Both target similar questions: What does it take, to become one with the avatar? When do we show the same behavior and make the same experiences, as if we were in its place? In this study, we want to address the role of action effect consistency for these concepts. We manipulated the participants' sense of agency over a task-irrelevant avatar in a Simon task by providing either corresponding or random action effects. These effects could be either embodied and therefore linked to the avatar (Experiment 1) or independent of it (Experiment 2). We used stimulus-response compatibility effects from the avatar's point of view as a measure for spontaneous visual perspective taking and a questionnaire to measure the perceived body ownership of the avatar. The results showed that corresponding action effects lead to increased spontaneous perspective taking of the avatar, regardless of whether the effect was linked to the avatar or not. Though the avatar compatibility effects were overall more pronounced in the embodied action effect condition. However, significant differences in perceived body ownership were only observed if the effects were linked to the avatar. The results might prove useful to further our understanding of subjective and objective measurements of interactions with avatars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.