↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the subjective experience of the “rubber hand” illusion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring the subjective experience of the “rubber hand” illusion
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00659
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camila Valenzuela Moguillansky, J. Kevin O'Regan, Claire Petitmengin

Abstract

Despite the fact that the rubber hand illusion (RHI) is an experimental paradigm that has been widely used in the last 14 years to investigate different aspects of the sense of bodily self, very few studies have sought to investigate the subjective nature of the experience that the RHI evokes. The present study investigates the phenomenology of the RHI through a specific elicitation method. More particularly, this study aims at assessing whether the conditions usually used as control in the RHI have an impact in the sense of body ownership and at determining whether there are different stages in the emergence of the illusion. The results indicate that far from being "all or nothing," the illusion induced by the RHI protocol involves nuances in the type of perceptual changes that it creates. These perceptual changes affect not only the participants' perception of the rubber hand but also the perception of their real hand. In addition, perceptual effects may vary greatly between participants and, importantly, they evolve over time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 136 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Student > Master 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 32%
Neuroscience 11 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 34 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 29 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,295,427
of 24,302,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,091
of 7,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,695
of 289,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#183
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,302,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 289,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.