Volume 14 · Number 1 · Pages 94–105
The Plasticity of the Bodily Self: Head Movements in Bodily Illusions and Their Relation to Gallagher’s Body Image and Body Schema

Marte Roel Lesur, Michael Gaebler, Philippe Bertrand & Bigna Lenggenhager

Download the full text in
PDF (404 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Context: The integration of sensorimotor signals and prior beliefs contribute to our sense of body. An influential framework in the study of the bodily self is Gallagher’s distinction between body image and body schema, which are roughly comparable to the perceived body and the lived body, respectively. Through systematic manipulations of sensorimotor signals, it is possible to induce the illusion of agency or ownership over foreign limbs or full bodies. Yet, there is diverging empirical evidence regarding the coherence of sensorimotor signals necessary to elicit such illusions. Problem: The large amount of empirical evidence and its relation to the concepts of body image and schema is not well understood and requires more fine-graded distinctions of various aspects of sensorimotor coherences. Method: We systematically discuss literature on sensorimotor coherence during bodily illusions and argue for the importance of distinguishing between head- and limb-related coherences. To support this discussion, we present new experimental findings where participants experienced a first-person perspective (1PP) full-body illusion over another human through the manipulation of hand-related visuotactile or visuomotor coherence. Results: Participants showed no significant reduction in ownership after asynchronous visuotactile, but after asynchronous visuomotor stimulation. Based on these results and the literature, we propose that head-related temporal sensorimotor coherences are necessary to integrate limb-related incoherent signals during full-body illusions. Furthermore, we speculate that during full-body illusions, head-related coherences are a binding factor between the body image and the body schema; that is, only through the coherent manipulation of the visual field over a 1PP resulting from an immersive image (body image) is our body schema manipulated. Implications: While yet to be experimentally tested, distinguishing head- and limb-related sensorimotor integration and their influences on body image and body schema could refine the study of the bodily self. Constructivist content: The plasticity of the bodily self - as shown in bodily illusions - reflects the dynamism of the subject as observer and its binding to its environment.


Roel Lesur M., Gaebler M., Bertrand P. & Lenggenhager B. (2018) The plasticity of the bodily self: Head movements in bodily illusions and their relation to gallagher’s body image and body schema. Constructivist Foundations 14(1): 94–105. http://constructivist.info/14/1/094

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)


Ahn S. J., Bostick J., Ogle E., Nowak K. L., McGillicuddy K. T. & Bailenson J. N. (2016) Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21(6): 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12173
Apps M. A. J. & Tsakiris M. (2014) The free-energy self: A predictive coding account of self-recognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 41: 85–97 http://cepa.info/5544
Aspell J. E., Heydrich L., Marillier G., Lavanchy T., Herbelin B. & Blanke O. (2013) Turning body and self inside out: Visualized heartbeats alter bodily self-consciousness and tactile perception. Psychological Science 24(12): 2445–2453. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bertrand P., González Franco D., Pointeau A. & Cherene C. (2014) The machine to be another: Embodied telepresence using human performers. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM, New York NY. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bertrand P., Guegan J., Robieux L., McCall C. A. & Zenasni F. (2018) Learning empathy through virtual reality: Multiple strategies for training empathy-related abilities using body ownership illusions in embodied virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5: 26. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00026
Blanke O., Slater M. & Serino A. (2015) Behavioral, neural, and computational principles of bodily self-consciousness. Neuron 88(1): 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.029
Botvinick M. & Cohen J. (1998) Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see. Nature 391(6669): 756. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Caola B., Montalti M., Zanini A., Leadbetter A. & Martini M. (2018) The bodily illusion in adverse conditions: Virtual arm ownership during visuomotor mismatch. Perception 47(5): 477–491. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cheng C. I. & Wakefield G. H. (2001) Introduction to head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) Representations of HRTFs in time, frequency, and space. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 49(4): 231–249. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
de Vignemont F. (2010) Body schema and body image: Pros and cons. Neuropsychologia 48(3): 669–680. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ehrsson H. H. (2007) The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences. Science 317(5841): 1048–1048. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Flögel M., Kalveram K. T., Christ O. & Vogt J. (2016) Application of the rubber hand illusion paradigm: Comparison between upper and lower limbs. Psychological Research 80(2): 298–306. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gallagher S. (2000) Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4(1): 14–21 http://cepa.info/4360
Gallagher S. (2005) Dynamic models of body schematic processes. In: De Preester H. & Knockaert V. (eds.) Body image and body schema. John Benjamins Publishers, Amsterdam: 233–250. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gallagher S. (2005) How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kalckert A. & Ehrsson H. H. (2012) Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: A dissociation of ownership and agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6: 40. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040
Kalckert A. & Ehrsson H. H. (2014) The moving rubber hand illusion revisited: Comparing movements and visuotactile stimulation to induce illusory ownership. Consciousness and Cognition 26: 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.003
Kammers M. P. M., de Vignemont F., Verhagen L. & Dijkerman H. C. (2009) The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia 47(1): 204–211. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kammers, Marjolein P. M., Kootker J. A., Hogendoorn H. & Dijkerman H. C. (2010) How many motoric body representations can we grasp? Experimental Brain Research 202(1): 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221–009–2124–7
Kokkinara E., Kilteni K., Blom K. J. & Slater M. (2016) First person perspective of seated participants over a walking virtual body leads to illusory agency over the walking. Scientific Reports 6: 28879. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28879
Kokkinara E., Slater M. & López-Moliner J. (2015) The effects of visuomotor calibration to the perceived space and body, through embodiment in immersive virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 13(1): 3. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lenggenhager B. & Lopez C. (2014) Vestibular contributions to the sense of body, self, and others. Open MIND. Frankfurt am Main: Group. https://doi.org/10.15502/9783958570023
Lenggenhager B., Hilti L. & Brugger P. (2015) Disturbed body integrity and the “rubber foot illusion.” Neuropsychology 29(2) 205–211. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lenggenhager B., Tadi T., Metzinger T. & Blanke O. (2007) Video ergo sum: Manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science 317(5841): 1096–1099. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Limanowski J. & Blankenburg F. (2013) Minimal self-models and the free energy principle. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 547. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00547
Longo M. R., Schüür F., Kammers M. P. M., Tsakiris M. & Haggard P. (2008) What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition 107(3): 978–998. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lopez C. & Elzière M. (2017) Out-of-body experience in vestibular disorders: A prospective study of 210 patients with dizziness. Cortex 104: 193–206. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Macauda G., Bertolini G., Palla A., Straumann D., Brugger P. & Lenggenhager B. (2015) Binding body and self in visuo-vestibular conflicts. The European Journal of Neuroscience 41(6): 810–817. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maravita A., Spence C. & Driver J. (2003) Multisensory integration and the body schema: Close to hand and within reach. Current Biology 13(13) R531–R539. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12842033
Maselli A. & Slater M. (2013) The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00083
Maselli A., Kilteni K., López-Moliner J. & Slater M. (2016) The sense of body ownership relaxes temporal constraints for multisensory integration. Scientific Reports 6: 30628. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30628
Nilsson N. C., Peck T., Bruder G., Hodgson E., Serafin S., Whitton M., Steinicke F. & Rosenberg E. S. (2018) 15 years of research on redirected walking in immersive virtual environments. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 38(2): 44–56 ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Oliveira E., Bertrand P., Lesur M., Palomo P., Demarzo M., Cebolla A., Baños R. & Tori R. (2016) Virtual body swap: A new feasible tool to be explored in health and education. https://doi.org/10.1109/SVR.2016.23
Petkova V. I. & Ehrsson H. H. (2008) If I were you: Perceptual illusion of body swapping. PLOS ONE 3(12) e3832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003832
Petkova V. I., Khoshnevis M. & Ehrsson H. H. (2011) The perspective matters! Multisensory integration in ego-centric reference frames determines full-body ownership. Frontiers in Psychology 2: 35. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00035
Pfeiffer C., Serino A. & Blanke O. (2014) The vestibular system: A spatial reference for bodily self-consciousness. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 8: 31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2014.00031
Ratcliffe N. & Newport R. (2017) The effect of visual, spatial and temporal manipulations on embodiment and action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11: 227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00227
Rohde M., Luca M. D. & Ernst M. O. (2011) The rubber hand illusion: Feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLOS ONE 6(6) E21659. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021659
Sanchez-Vives M. V., Spanlang B., Frisoli A., Bergamasco M. & Slater M. (2010) Virtual hand illusion induced by visuomotor correlations. PLOS ONE 5(4) e10381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010381
Sforza A., Bufalari I., Haggard P. & Aglioti S. M. (2010) My face in yours: Visuo-tactile facial stimulation influences sense of identity. Social Neuroscience 5(2): 148–162. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Slater M., Spanlang B., Sanchez-Vives M. V. & Blanke O. (2010) First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLoS ONE 5(5) E10564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010564
Suzuki K., Garfinkel S. N., Critchley H. D. & Seth A. K. (2013) Multisensory integration across exteroceptive and interoceptive domains modulates self-experience in the rubber-hand illusion. Neuropsychologia 51(13): 2909–2917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.08.014
Tajadura-Jiménez A., Marquardt T., Swapp D., Kitagawa N. & Bianchi-Berthouze N. (2016) Action sounds modulate arm reaching movements. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1391. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01391
Tajadura-Jiménez A., Väljamäe A., Toshima I., Kimura T., Tsakiris M. & Kitagawa N. (2012) Action sounds recalibrate perceived tactile distance. Current Biology 22(13): R516–R517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.04.028
Tsakiris M. & Haggard P. (2005) The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 31(1): 80–91. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Tsakiris M. (2008) Looking for myself: Current multisensory input alters self-face recognition. PLoS ONE 3(12) E4040. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004040

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.