| Title |
Changing the size of a mirror-reflected hand moderates the experience of embodiment but not proprioceptive drift: a repeated measures study on healthy human participants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-017-4930-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Priscilla G. Wittkopf, Donna M. Lloyd, Mark I. Johnson |
| Abstract |
Mirror visual feedback is used for reducing pain and visually distorting the size of the reflection may improve efficacy. The findings of studies investigating size distortion are inconsistent. The influence of the size of the reflected hand on embodiment of the mirror reflection is not known. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of magnifying and minifying mirror reflections of the hand on embodiment measured using an eight-item questionnaire and on proprioceptive drift. During the experiment, participants (n = 45) placed their right hand behind a mirror and their left hand in front of a mirror. Participants watched a normal-sized, a magnified and a minified reflection of the left hand while performing synchronised finger movements for 3 min (adaptive phase). Measurements of embodiment were taken before (pre) and after (post) synchronous movements of the fingers of both hands (embodiment adaptive phase). Results revealed larger proprioceptive drift post-adaptive phase (p = 0.001). Participants agreed more strongly with questionnaire items associated with location, ownership and agency of the reflection of the hand post-adaptive phase (p < 0.001) and when looking at the normal-sized reflection (p < 0.001). In conclusion, irrespective of size, watching a reflection of the hand while performing synchronised movements enhances the embodiment of the reflection of the hand. Magnifying and minifying the reflection of the hand has little effect on proprioceptive drift, but it weakens the subjective embodiment experience. Such factors need to be taken into account in future studies using this technique, particularly when assessing mirror visual feedback for pain management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 20% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 26 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,465,171
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,015
of 3,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,768
of 334,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#34
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.