Assessment of Multisensory Interaction in “Illusion of the Rubber Hand”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34024/rnc.2011.v19.10373Keywords:
Conflict, Sensation, Vision, Touch, Pain Measurement, ProprioceptionAbstract
The knowledge of the world is constructed through various sensory stimuli, associated or in conflicting situations. Objective. To assess the sensory perception produced on conflicting multisensory informations between proprioception, vision, tactile and painful stimuli, comparing the illusion after the tactile stimulation with the illusion after painful stimuli in different orders. Method. Experimental study with 22 healthy students divided into two groups: A - received first tactile and after painful stimuli and B - first painful and after tactile stimuli. Materials of the experiment: box, rubber hand, brush and toothpick. Scales of illusion: questionnaire adapted from Botvinick and Visual Analogical Scale. Results. Through the questionnaire it was identified illusion after tactile and painful stimulation. When compared the illusion after the stimuli, the painful showed higher illusion than tactile, for some items in group A and group A + B. Through the visual analogical scale group A showed bigger illusion after the painful stimulus than after tactile stimulation. Conclusion. There was illusion when interacted vision, proprioception and touch, and the interaction between vision, proprioception and pain, with painful stimulus providing bigger illusion on some items of the questionnaire and analogical scale in group A.
Metrics
References
2.Coren S. Sensation and Perception. In: Nezu CM, Nezu AM, Geller PA (ed). Handbook of Psychology, Health Psychology. Canada: Copyright,
2003, 668p.
3.Ekman LL. Neurociência. Fundamentos para Reabilitação. 2ª. ed. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Elsevier, 2004, 477p.
4.Graziano MSA, Botvinick MM. How the brain represents the body: insights from neurophysiology and psychology. In: Prinz W, Hommel B (eds).
Common mechanisms in perception and action, attention and performance, Oxford: Oxford UP 2001;1:136-57.
5.Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessel TM. Princípios da Neurociência. 4ª. ed. São Paulo, SP: Manole, 2002, 1430p.
6.Baldo MVC, Haddad H. Ilusões: o olho mágico da percepção. Rev Bras Psiquiatr, 2003;25:6-11.
7.Botvinick M, Cohen J. Rubber Hands “Feel” Touch That Eyes See. Nature 1998;391:756.
8.Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971;9:97-113.
9.Ramachandran VS, Blakeslee S. Phantoms in the brain. New York: Quill, 1998, 328p.
10.Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passinghan RE. That’s my hand! Activity in premotor córtex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 2004;305:875-7.
11.Capelari EDP. Avaliação da interação cerebral entre a visão, o tato, a propriocepção e a dor na “ilusão da mão de borracha” (Dissertação). Brasília: UNB, 2005, 42 p.
12.Hills JM, Ernst MO, Banks MS, Landy MS. Combining sensory information: mandatory fusion within, but not between, senses. Science
2002;298:1627-30.
13.Beers RJ, Wolpert DM, Haggard P. When feeling is more important than seeing in sensoriomotor adaptation. Current Biology 2002;12:834-7.
14.Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D. Synaesthesia in phantom Limbs Induced With Mirror. Proc. R. Soc. Lond 1996;263:377-86.
