4.2 Article

If I were a grown-up: Children's response to the rubber hand illusion with different hand sizes

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
卷 185, 期 -, 页码 191-205

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.016

关键词

Body representation development; Body awareness; Rubber hand illusion; Size-weight illusion; Body size; Body image

资金

  1. Research Promotion Fund (University of Essex)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During childhood, children's bodies undergo rapid physical growth, which may affect their ability to accurately perceive their own bodies as well as the external environment. Concurrently, multi sensory processes underlying bodily self-consciousness gradually develop. However, little is known of the relation between changes in body size and corresponding update in bodily self-consciousness. In this study, 6- to 8-year-old children experienced the rubber hand illusion while watching a regular (child-like) or larger (adult-like) rubber hand being touched either synchronously or asynchronously with their own real hand. We measured proprioceptive drift and subjective ownership as well as changes in weight estimation of objects. Synchronous versus asynchronous visuotactile stroking with both the regular and larger hands caused a change in subjective body ownership but did not make a difference in perceived hand location and weight estimation of objects having the same size but different weight. Intriguingly, simply viewing the regular hand led to greater proprioceptive drift and to overestimation of the objects' weight relative to the larger hand. In addition, weight estimation was also influenced by hand size after visuotactile stroking. These results demonstrate that visuotactile information modulates the intrinsic properties of body representation in terms of size in children and further corroborate previous findings suggesting late developing optimal calibration of visual and proprioceptive signals. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据