Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2026

06:53
Creating Virtual-hand and Virtual-face Illusions to Investigate Self-representation
Published on: March 1, 2017
Visuotactile learning and body representation: an ERP study with rubber hands and rubber objects
Clare Press1, Cecilia Heyes, Patrick Haggard
1Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK. c.press@ucl.ac.uk
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
|February 16, 2008
Summary
Synchronous visual and tactile input enhances early somatosensory processing, suggesting temporal contiguity is key for the rubber hand illusion. Later processing is influenced by existing body representations, affecting attentional bias.
Area of Science:
- Neuroscience
- Psychology
- Somatosensory Research
Background:
- Understanding how visual and tactile information integrate is crucial for explaining sensory processing.
- The rubber hand illusion (RHI) provides a model for investigating multisensory integration and body ownership.
- Investigating the temporal and representational factors influencing visuotactile integration is essential for mapping brain mechanisms.
Purpose of the Study:
- To examine how integrating seen and felt tactile stimulation affects somatosensory processing.
- To determine if visuotactile integration relies on temporal contiguity and coherence with existing body representations.
- To identify electrophysiological markers associated with visuotactile integration and the RHI.
Main Methods:
- Participants underwent training with synchronous or uncorrelated visual-tactile stimulation of their hand and a rubber hand/object.
- Somatosensory event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded during tactile stimulation of the participant's hand.
- Analysis focused on early (N140) and late ERP components to assess processing changes.
Main Results:
- Synchronous visuotactile training, regardless of object type, enhanced the early somatosensory N140 component.
- This early enhancement suggests temporal contiguity, not pre-existing body representation, drives initial visuotactile integration.
- Later ERP modulations (beyond 200ms) indicated an attentional bias, which was absent with uncorrelated stimulation, suggesting a role for body representations in later stages.
Conclusions:
- Early visuotactile integration, reflected in the N140, is primarily driven by temporal contiguity, supporting the RHI.
- Pre-existing body representations appear to influence later attentional processing stages rather than initial sensory perception.
- The findings provide electrophysiological evidence for distinct temporal and representational influences on multisensory integration in the human brain.

