Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37781250›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

The rubber hand illusion evaluated using different stimulation modalities.

Pamela Svensson, Nebojša Malešević, Ulrika Wijk, Anders Björkman, Christian Antfolk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pamela SvenssonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Nebojša MaleševićDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Ulrika WijkDepartment of Translational Medicine - Hand Surgery, Lund University and Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Anders BjörkmanDepartment of Hand Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Christian AntfolkDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lund University · SESahlgrenska University Hospital · SESkåne University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tactile feedback plays a vital role in inducing ownership and improving motor control of prosthetic hands. However, commercially available prosthetic hands typically do not provide tactile feedback and because of that the prosthetic user must rely on visual input to adjust the grip. The classical rubber hand illusion (RHI) where a brush is stroking the rubber hand, and the user's hidden hand synchronously can induce ownership of a rubber hand. In the classic RHI the stimulation is modality-matched, meaning that the stimulus on the real hand matches the stimulus on the rubber hand. The RHI has also been used in previous studies with a prosthetic hand as the "rubber hand," suggesting that a hand prosthesis can be incorporated within the amputee's body scheme. Interestingly, previous studies have shown that stimulation with a mismatched modality, where the rubber hand was brushed, and vibrations were felt on the hidden hand also induced the RHI. The aim of this study was to compare how well mechanotactile, vibrotactile, and electrotactile feedback induced the RHI in able-bodied participants and forearm amputees. 27 participants with intact hands and three transradial amputees took part in a modified RHI experiment. The rubber hand was stroked with a brush, and the participant's hidden hand/residual limb received stimulation with either brush stroking, electricity, pressure, or vibration. The three latter stimulations were modality mismatched with regard to the brushstroke. Participants were tested for ten different combinations (stimulation blocks) where the stimulations were applied on the volar (glabrous skin), and dorsal (hairy skin) sides of the hand. Outcome was assessed using two standard tests (questionnaire and proprioceptive drift). All types of stimulation induced RHI but electrical and vibration stimulation induced a stronger RHI than pressure. After completing more stimulation blocks, the proprioceptive drift test showed that the difference between pre- and post-test was reduced. This indicates that the illusion was drifting toward the rubber hand further into the session.

Indexed as

electrotactile stimulationmechanotactile stimulationrubber hand illusionstimulation modalityvibrotactile stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37781250
PMCPMC10536259
OpenAlexW4386751478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.