4.2 Article

The projected hand illusion: component structure in a community sample and association with demographics, cognition, and psychotic-like experiences

期刊

ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 207-219

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0748-6

关键词

Rubber hand illusion; Embodiment; Agency; Self-perception; Principal components analysis; Psychotic-like experiences

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Grant [634328]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The projected hand illusion (PHI) is a variant of the rubber hand illusion (RHI), and both are commonly used to study mechanisms of self-perception. A questionnaire was developed by Longo et al. (2008) to measure qualitative changes in the RHI. Such psychometric analyses have not yet been conducted on the questionnaire for the PHI. The present study is an attempt to validate minor modifications of the questionnaire of Longo et al. to assess the PHI in a community sample (n = 48) and to determine the association with selected demographic (age, sex, years of education), cognitive (Digit Span), and clinical (psychotic-like experiences) variables. Principal components analysis on the questionnaire data extracted four components: Embodiment of Other Hand, Disembodiment of Own Hand, Deafference, and Agency-in both synchronous and asynchronous PHI conditions. Questions assessing Embodiment and Agency loaded onto orthogonal components. Greater illusion ratings were positively associated with being female, being younger, and having higher scores on psychotic-like experiences. There was no association with cognitive performance. Overall, this study confirmed that self-perception as measured with PHI is a multicomponent construct, similar in many respects to the RHI. The main difference lies in the separation of Embodiment and Agency into separate constructs, and this likely reflects the fact that the live image of the PHI presents a more realistic picture of the hand and of the stroking movements of the experimenter compared with the RHI.

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