ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2020
Psychometric evaluation of the Pinocchio Illusion Questionnaire.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The different impact of attention, movement, and sensory information on body metric representation.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Understanding Challenging Behaviors in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Multi-Component, Interdisciplinary Model.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Hypothesis awareness confounds asynchronous control conditions in indirect measures of the rubber hand illusion.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perceived nose elongation resulting from vibratory stimulation to the bicep brachii tendon in the absence of visual input while the finger is touching the nose, known as the Pinocchio Illusion (PI), is used to investigate how afferent signals can contribute to aberrant top-down perception of body representation. The Pinocchio Illusion Questionnaire (PIQ) was developed to empirically quantify PI perception, allowing for external validation of the PI with psychologically relevant phenomenon. The current study (N = 60) examined the PIQ's test-retest reliability, internal consistency, factor structure, and correlations with self-reported interoceptive awareness and schizotypal traits. The PIQ demonstrated strong test-retest reliability and internal validity; however, a Principal Component Analysis did not yield a latent variable structure that distinguished PI-specific perceptual aberrations from unrelated or contradictory perceptual experiences. Additionally, decreased reports of PI-specific perceptual aberrations during two elicitations of the PI on the PIQ's open-ended free-response section (percent of sample endorsement = 5% (first elicitation); 8.3% (second elicitation)) compared to its 11-item section (endorsement of PI-specific items ranging 30-53.33% (first)]; 31.67-46.67% (second)) suggest that these responses may be heavily influenced by demand characteristics rather than accurately capturing PI perception. Therefore, further psychometric development of the PIQ and standardization of procedures to elicit the illusion are recommended.
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.