ArticleScientific reports2026
The proprioception illusion can simulate limb movement in persons with limb difference.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proprioception illusion occurs when cutaneous vibrations are applied to a muscle tendon which triggers nerves to signal to the brain that the muscle is lengthening, and therefore the limb is moving. This phenomenon has been used in a wide range of studies. One potential use of the illusion is for sensory feedback for limb prostheses, but this has not been investigated using non-invasive methods. This is the first reported non-invasive test of the illusion with limb different participants. The responses of sixteen persons with upper arm differences (eight congenital and eight acquired) were measured over a range of frequencies and locations. Eighty seven percent of participants (n = 14) confirmed feeling illusionary movements, only two participants did not. Participants felt extension (n = 7) and flexion (n = 7) of the elbow, humeral abduction (n = 10) and adduction (n = 6) and rotation of their upper arm (n = 9). Statistical analyses of 5-point likert scores revealed that arms in the hanging position had significantly more vivid (mean ± SD: 2.47 ± 1.44 vs. 2.13 ± 1.35) and longer duration (2.52 ± 1.52 vs. 2.19 ± 1.47) illusions with a greater perceived range of movement (1.91 ±1.09 vs. 1.78 ± 1.09) compared to when the arm was supported. There were no significant differences in illusionary movements between stimulation frequencies or sites.
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.