Several disease presentations are linked to a mismatch between the real body and the body’s internal representation of itself. In order to develop effective rehabilitation therapies, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms underlying changes in body representation. In this study, we focused on changes in body representation of the upper limb as a large part of the body and investigated the conditions under which such changes occur. Participants were presented four conditions which differentially affected their sense of ownership and agency, including a movement condition related to their sense of agency, and a visual hand information condition related to the sense of ownership. In the experiment, participants were asked to move their upper limb forward and backward on a manipulandum. Results of the study showed that visual hand position affected changes in body representation relevant to both conscious and unconscious body parts. In addition, changes in the representation of the unconscious body part occurred with, and were dependent on, active movement.

1. [1] E. L. Altschuler, S. B. Wisdom, L. Stone, C. Foster, D. Galasko, D. M. E. Llewellyn, and V. S. Ramachandran, “Rehabilitation of hemiparesis after stroke with a mirror,” The Lancet, Vol.353, Issue 9169, pp. 2035-2036, 1999.
2. [2] K. Sathian, A. I. Greenspan, and S. L. Wolf, “Doing it with mirrors: a case study of a novel approach to neurorehabilitation,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol.14, No.1, pp. 73-76, 2000.
3. [3] C. Dohle, J. Püllen, A. Nakaten, J. Küst, C. Rietz, and H. Karbe, “Mirror therapy promotes recovery from severe hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol.23, No.3, pp. 209-217, 2009.
4. [4] M. E. Michielsen, R. W. Selles, J. N. van der Geest, M. Eckhardt, G. Yavuzer, H. J. Stam, M. Smits, G. M. Ribbers, and J. B. J. Bussmann, “Motor Recovery and cortical reorganization after mirror therapy in chronic stroke patients a phase II randomized controlled trial,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol.25, No.3, pp. 223-233, 2011.
5. [5] V. S. Ramachandran, D. R. Ramachandran, and S. Cobb, “Touching the phantom limb,” Nature, Vol.377, pp. 489-490, 1995.
6. [6] H. Head and G. Holmes, “Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions,” Brain, Vol.34, No.2-3, pp. 102-254, 1911.
7. [7] P. Schilder, “The image and appearance of the human body,” Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1935.
8. [8] S. Fisher and S. E. Cleveland, “Body image and personality,” Second Edition, New York Dover Publications, 1968.
9. [9] M. Botvinick and J. Cohen, “Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see,” Nature, Vol.391, No.756, 1998.
10. [10] M. Tsakiris and P. Haggard, “The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution,” J. of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance,” Vol.31, No.1, pp. 80-91, 2005.
11. [11] M. Tsakiris, L. Carpenter, D. James, and A. Fotopoulou, “Hands only illusion: multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects,” Experimental Brain Research, Vol.204, No.3, pp. 343-352, 2010.
12. [12] T. Dummer, A. Picot-Annand, T. Neal, and C. Moore, “Movement and the rubber hand illusion,” Perception, Vol.38, No.2, pp. 271-280, 2009.
13. [13] M. P. M. Kammers, M. R. Longo, M. Tsakiris, H. C. Dijkerman, and P. Haggard, “Specificity and coherence of body representations,” Perception, Vol.38, No.12, pp. 1804-1820, 2009.
14. [14] M. R. Longo and P. Haggard, “Sense of agency primes manual motor responses,” Perception, Vol.38, No.1, pp. 69-78, 2009.
15. [15] M. Tsakiris, G. Prabhu, and P. Haggard, “Having a body versus moving your body: How agency structures body-ownership,” Consciousness and Cognition, Vol.15, No.2, pp. 423-432, 2006.
16. [16] S. Gallagher, “Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 14-21, 2000.
17. [17] H. H. Ehrsson, “The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences,” Science, Vol.317, Issue 5841, p. 1048, 2007.
18. [18] B. Lenggenhager, T. Tadi, T. Metzinger, and O. Blanke, “Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness,” Science, Vol.317, Issue 5841, pp. 1096-1099, 2007.
19. [19] M. V. Butz, E. F. Kutter, and C. Lorenz, “Rubber Hand Illusion Affects Joint Angle Perception,” Plos one, Vol.9, No.3, e92854, 2014.
20. [20] A. Kalckert and H. H. Ehrsson, “Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: a dissociation of ownership and agency,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Vol.6, No.40, pp. 1-14, 2012.
21. [21] A. Kalckert and H. H. Ehrsson, “The spatial distance rule in the moving and classical rubber hand illusions,” Consciousness and Cognition, Vol.30, pp. 118-132, 2014.
22. [22] T. Asai, “Agency elicits body-ownership: proprioceptive drift toward a synchronously acting external proxy,” Experimental Brain Research, Vol.234, No.5, pp. 1163-1174, 2016.
23. [23] S. Olejnik and J. Algina, “Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs,” Psychological Methods, Vol.8, No.4, pp. 434-447, 2003.
24. [24] R. Bakeman, “Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs,” Behavior Research Methods, Vol.37, No.3, pp. 379-384, 2005.
25. [25] R. J. van Beers, A. C. Sittig, and J. J. van der Gon Denier, “How humans combine simultaneous proprioceptive and visual position information,” Experimental Brain Research, Vol.111, No.2, pp. 253-261, 1996.