ReviewBehavior research methods2021
The rubber hand illusion in children: What are we measuring?
Review in Behavior research methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Somatic Rubber Hand Illusion does not modulate perceived hand position in children with severe visual impairments.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- From adolescence to old age: how sensory precision shapes body ownership during physiological aging.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Hypothesis awareness confounds asynchronous control conditions in indirect measures of the rubber hand illusion.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- The Development of a Flexible Bodily Representation: Behavioral Outcomes and Brain Oscillatory Activity During the Rubber Hand Illusion in Preterm and Full-Term School-Age Children.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rubber hand illusion (RHI) is a much-studied bodily illusion that has been used in a wide number of populations to investigate the plasticity of the mental body representation. In adult participants, the wide adoption of the illusion has led to a proliferation of experimental variations of the illusion, and with that, considerable apparent inconsistencies in both empirical results and conceptual interpretations. In turn, this makes it challenging to integrate empirical findings and to identify what those findings together can tell us about the representation of the body in the brain. More recently, scientists have started applying the illusion to populations of children, in order to better understand how body representations develop in both typically developing children and in clinical populations. With this field now starting to expand, we believe it is both urgent and important to prevent unintended methodological variability from hindering the consistency of the paediatric literature as it has the adult literature. With this aim in mind, we review the 12 currently available paediatric RHI studies, and summarise their key methodological choices and conceptual definitions. We highlight a number of important discrepancies, particularly where seemingly equivalent analysis choices might significantly affect the interpretation of results, and make recommendations for future studies. We hope this will allow this important and emerging field to benefit from the synergy that results from multiple studies using convergent and consistent empirical methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34019217What 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.