Bodily Self-Awareness: Body Ownership and First-Person Experience

19 hours ago

17 min read

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Consciousness, Metacognition & Self-Awareness · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Bodily self-awareness is the experience of oneself as an embodied individual: experiencing a body as one's own, occupying a location in space, and perceiving the surrounding world from a bodily first-person perspective. These experiences ordinarily remain stable and largely unnoticed, yet experimental manipulations of vision, touch, movement, and bodily signals can change them. Body ownership is the feeling that this body or body part belongs to oneself in an experiential sense. It is closely related to self-location and first-person perspective, while remaining distinguishable from the feeling of controlling an action, or sense of agency. Blanke (2012) and Dary and Lopez (2023) review these components and their neurological foundations.

A central result of bodily-self research is that the felt boundary between self and body depends on multisensory processing and the brain's ongoing models of the body. Laboratory effects such as the rubber hand illusion, full-body illusions, and virtual-body experiences make this process experimentally accessible. These findings explain how a coherent embodied perspective can be maintained and, under specific conditions, temporarily modified. They do not establish that a person literally changes bodies, that a single neural region produces the self, or that a laboratory illusion constitutes a psychiatric condition.

What Is Bodily Self-Awareness?

Bodily self-awareness refers to the set of experiences and representations by which a person experiences a body as their own and experiences themselves as situated in the physical world. Researchers often use the related term bodily self-consciousness. In a widely used decomposition, the central dimensions are body ownership or self-identification, self-location, and first-person perspective. Some contemporary models also consider agency and perceptual body image. The components interact during normal experience but can be partially dissociated by experimental manipulations, neurological lesions, and direct electrical stimulation. Blanke (2012); Dary et al. (2023).

The ordinary experience of reaching for a cup illustrates this coordination. You experience the reaching hand as your hand, know approximately where the hand lies relative to the cup, encounter the cup from a viewpoint centered on your body, and usually experience the movement as produced by your own action. Each of these features can be investigated separately. A body can feel like one's own even when movement is impossible, and a movement can be caused by someone else without abolishing ownership of the moved limb. Tsakiris, Longo, and Haggard (2010).

Body ownership: the feeling that a body is mine

Body ownership is a felt relationship between oneself and the body. This experiential meaning differs from the legal or social ownership of a possession. A person can own a bicycle while never experiencing the bicycle as part of their body; conversely, the body is normally experienced as one's own without a deliberate judgment of possession. Research sometimes uses the phrase sense of ownership, but authors should specify whether they mean a limb, an entire body, or the body as an experienced whole. Tsakiris (2010).

Ownership is usually stable because visual, tactile, proprioceptive, and other signals are broadly consistent. It becomes analytically visible when these signals conflict. Experiments create controlled discrepancies between what participants see and what they feel, then ask whether the perceived object or simulated body begins to feel like theirs.

Self-location: where I experience myself to be

Self-location describes where a person experiences the center or spatial position of their embodied self. Under ordinary conditions, perceived self-location aligns with the physical body. Full-body illusion studies show that some features of perceived self-location can shift toward the position of a visually presented body or perspective. Such shifts are often partial and depend on the manipulation, measurement, and instructions. They should not be equated with the physical movement of the body or a literal transfer of consciousness. Lenggenhager et al. (2007); Blanke (2012).

First-person perspective: where the world appears to be viewed from

First-person perspective is the experienced bodily vantage point from which the surrounding world is perceived. It generally aligns with the eyes and head, but the felt viewpoint is a structured part of self-experience rather than a mere camera coordinate. Experimental virtual-reality arrangements can alter the relation between visual viewpoint, felt body position, and ownership. Body ownership, self-location, and first-person perspective often move together, yet their neural and experiential components need not coincide in every study. Serino et al. (2013).

Agency: the feeling of causing one's own actions

The sense of agency concerns whether an action or its effect feels caused or controlled by oneself. Body ownership concerns which body or body part feels like one's own. They can reinforce each other when a virtual hand moves in synchrony with a person's movement, but they are conceptually and experimentally distinct. A person can experience ownership without initiating movement, as during passive touch, and can generate a remote action without necessarily experiencing the device as part of their body. Tsakiris, Longo, and Haggard (2010); Girondini et al. (2025).

How Does the Brain Build a Sense of the Body?

Multisensory integration

The nervous system combines sensory information to estimate which events belong together and where body parts are located. Vision supplies appearance and spatial position; touch provides contact; proprioception informs the position and movement of muscles and joints; vestibular signals contribute orientation and balance; interoception provides information related to internal bodily conditions. Successful integration helps maintain a coherent practical and experiential body representation. Blanke (2012); Candia-Rivera et al. (2024).

The time and spatial alignment of signals matter. When visual stroking of a plausible artificial hand coincides with touch felt on a hidden real hand, an observer may begin to experience the artificial hand as their own. Asynchronous stroking typically reduces the effect, although conditions and effect sizes differ. The broader principle is that sensory signals have to be evaluated in relation to a representation of the body, not merely counted as coincident events. Botvinick and Cohen (1998); Tsakiris (2010).

Body models, anatomy, and expectations

Current sensory data are interpreted against a relatively durable understanding of what a body is and where its parts can be. Anatomical plausibility, posture, visual resemblance, and spatial correspondence help determine whether a visible object is treated as a candidate body part. A plausible-looking hand in an appropriate position generally supports ownership effects more readily than an unrelated object placed arbitrarily. Models differ about the relative weight of prior body representations and lower-level multisensory computation. Their disagreements are empirical questions about mechanisms, not merely disputes about words. Tsakiris (2010).

Body representation is often divided into body schema and body image. Body schema usually describes sensorimotor representations that support posture and action, often with limited conscious attention. Body image more often describes perceptual and cognitive representations of bodily form and appearance. These are families of theoretical distinctions whose precise definitions vary across research traditions. Neither label is interchangeable with the subjective sense of ownership; a person can have a useful sensorimotor map of a limb while experiencing that limb unusually.

Interoception and internal bodily signals

A body is experienced through external encounters and internal physiological signals. Heartbeat-related, respiratory, visceral, and other interoceptive processes contribute to bodily regulation and are candidates for shaping bodily self-awareness. Experiments combining virtual reality and electrophysiology have found that changes in neural responses to heartbeats covary with experimentally altered bodily self-consciousness. This is evidence of an association and a possible mechanistic contribution, while the direction and causal specificity of the relationships require further investigation. Park et al. (2016); Candia-Rivera et al. (2024).

Interoceptive accuracy, attention to body signals, bodily concern, and ownership are different constructs. Feeling one's heartbeat acutely does not establish greater body ownership or deeper general self-knowledge. Measures of interoception vary, and conclusions drawn from a single heartbeat-detection task or questionnaire can be narrower than popular descriptions imply.

Vestibular signals and spatial orientation

Vestibular information helps estimate head movement, gravity, and bodily orientation. Together with visual and somatosensory signals, it contributes to the felt position of the body in space. When these signals conflict, perceived self-location and perspective may become unusual. Neurological and experimental observations involving temporoparietal processing make vestibular contributions especially relevant to theories of embodiment. The existence of such associations does not imply that every everyday dizziness episode changes self-awareness. Blanke (2012); Dary and Lopez (2023).

The Rubber Hand Illusion: Why a Fake Hand Can Feel Like Your Own

In the classic rubber hand illusion, a participant's real hand is hidden while a rubber hand sits in a plausible position in view. An experimenter strokes the visible rubber hand and the hidden real hand in temporally corresponding ways. Many participants report an altered sense that the rubber hand is theirs, or experience touch as if located on it. Botvinick and Cohen's 1998 report established an influential experimental paradigm for investigating the interaction of vision, touch, and proprioception. Botvinick and Cohen (1998).

A useful experimental comparison presents asynchronous strokes, changes the hand's orientation, or manipulates the spatial separation between seen and felt events. Researchers can then assess how synchrony, plausibility, and context influence the experience. A verbal report of ownership is informative about the person's experience; it becomes stronger evidence when compared with adequate control conditions and convergent measures. It is important to distinguish an experimentally induced perception from a belief that a rubber object has physically become part of the person.

What is proprioceptive drift?

Proprioceptive drift is a shift in the judged position of the hidden real hand, often toward the visually displayed artificial hand. It provides information about spatial recalibration, but it cannot serve as a standalone proof of felt ownership. In experiments, perceived ownership and proprioceptive drift can separate. One person can show a location shift without a strong ownership report, or the reverse. Rohde, Di Luca, and Ernst (2011).

Other measures include embodiment questionnaires, responses to a perceived threat to an artificial limb, physiological arousal, and changes in motor behavior. These indexes capture related but differing processes, and a physiological response to threat is not a direct reading of subjective experience. Each measure requires appropriate interpretation and controls.

Expectations, suggestibility, and contested interpretation

The rubber hand illusion is influential partly because it produces vivid subjective reports under systematic manipulations. Research also raises important methodological questions. A preregistered study by Lush argued that demand characteristics can affect reports of the illusion, while large-sample work associated the reported experience with individual differences in phenomenological control, the ability to produce experiences in response to suggestions and expectations. Lush (2020); Lush et al. (2020).

These findings are a reason to improve experimental control, blind or balance relevant expectations where feasible, preregister outcomes, and triangulate subjective and behavioral measures. They do not by themselves demonstrate that all reported ownership changes are artifacts, nor do illusion studies alone isolate a single neural cause of embodiment. Science advances by asking which effects are robust, what they measure, and which competing mechanisms make different predictions.

Full-Body Illusions and Changes in Self-Location

A virtual body seen from another position

Researchers can use video, head-mounted displays, and coordinated touch to expose a participant to a body seen at another apparent location. In an influential 2007 study, Lenggenhager and colleagues manipulated visual perspective and correlated tactile stimulation to alter participants' reports of bodily self-consciousness and location. The experiment demonstrated that aspects of where the self is experienced can be sensitive to multisensory conditions. Lenggenhager et al. (2007).

A related set of experiments placed people in the visual perspective of a mannequin or another person. Correlated visual and somatosensory signals could make the seen body feel like one's own, and threat-related physiological responses supplied an additional measure. The researchers' interpretation concerned perceptual body ownership under experimental conditions. A simulated body-swap experience does not establish a literal transfer of personal identity or consciousness. Petkova and Ehrsson (2008).

Why perspective matters

Seeing a body from a first-person vantage point can make visual evidence more compatible with ordinary bodily expectations. Third-person perspectives can also affect self-location and identification under certain arrangements, although effect patterns differ across paradigms. One study may prioritize the ownership of an avatar, another the estimated location of the self, and a third changes in perspective. Collapsing these into a single undifferentiated phenomenon obscures the experiments' different predictions and outcomes. Blanke (2012).

Virtual reality and avatars

Virtual reality enables controlled variations in body appearance, tracking, movement synchrony, and visuotactile stimulation. It can induce ownership-like experiences toward virtual limbs or avatars, but their magnitude and the relation between ownership and agency vary. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 111 papers concluded that virtual avatar embodiment typically produced modest ownership and somewhat higher agency, while identifying underpowered studies, inconsistent terminology, and measurement heterogeneity. Mottelson et al. (2023).

A 2025 systematic review of implicit virtual-reality measures further reported that manipulations of movement congruence and of spatial or tactile consistency affect ownership and agency indexes differently. Agreement between implicit indexes and explicit reports was heterogeneous. The review strengthens the case for studying several dimensions and simultaneously limits claims that any single VR score is a universal measure of embodiment. Girondini et al. (2025).

What Neuroscience Shows About the Bodily Self

No single 'self center' has been established. Research implicates distributed cortical and subcortical processes involved in visual, somatosensory, vestibular, motor, and interoceptive integration. Premotor and intraparietal networks are frequently discussed in relation to limb ownership; temporoparietal regions contribute importantly to self-location and perspective; the insula and other structures appear across studies of internal bodily and agency-related processes. These associations are not rigid one-to-one assignments. Blanke (2012); Brunello et al. (2025).

Neuroimaging and brain stimulation

Functional MRI and electroencephalography can identify activity associated with experimental changes in bodily experience. The association itself does not demonstrate that a region is necessary or sufficient for the resulting experience. Brain stimulation and focal neurological observations can add causal information but have their own sampling and localization limits.

A 2023 systematic review of direct electrical brain stimulation surveyed 42 reports involving 221 patients and found alterations of bodily-self components associated with stimulation at several sites, including parietal and cingulate regions, supplementary motor areas, posterior insula, and other structures. In the included evidence, parietal stimulation was associated with disturbances across all five studied components, but the clinical stimulation context and sparse heterogeneous reports make population-wide generalization premature. Dary et al. (2023).

A 2025 systematic review and coordinate-based meta-analysis synthesized neural correlates across body-ownership and agency studies. It found distributed frontal, parietal, occipital, cerebellar, insular, and sensorimotor involvement, supporting network-level accounts. Meta-analytic convergence helps organize evidence but cannot eliminate differences in experimental tasks or establish subjective experience from an anatomical map. Brunello et al. (2025).

Predictive and causal-inference accounts

One family of explanations proposes that the brain combines noisy sensory signals according to their reliability and whether they appear to share a common bodily cause. A body-based expectation constrains what can plausibly be integrated. Another emphasizes hierarchical predictions and the updating of models when expected sensory consequences differ from input. These accounts offer candidate computational principles rather than a complete, universally confirmed theory of the bodily self. Their value depends on whether they predict results across different illusions and measures more accurately than alternatives. Tsakiris (2010); Dary and Lopez (2023).

How Scientists Measure Bodily Self-Awareness

Research often begins by distinguishing the target experience from the test used to infer it. An ownership questionnaire may ask how strongly a participant felt that an artificial hand was theirs. A self-location estimate asks where they felt they were situated. An action task examines perceived or actual control. A proprioceptive judgment tracks estimated limb position. Physiological measures may index arousal or neural response. None can replace all the others.

Subjective reports

Well-defined reports are essential because ownership and first-person perspective are experiences. Wording, response scale, experimenter expectations, and whether participants understand the task can influence the result. A useful instrument avoids treating every agreement with a suggestive sentence as unambiguous ownership and includes control items that meaningfully test alternative explanations. Reports offer evidence of experience under specified conditions, rather than direct access to its neural mechanism.

Behavioral and physiological measures

Behavioral tasks include reaching, limb localization, and responses to changes in spatially congruent feedback. Researchers also record skin conductance during a threat to an artificial or virtual body, heart-related neural activity, and motor-control indexes. Each measure can be affected by factors beyond ownership, including arousal, attention, threat expectation, and task demands. The drift-versus-ownership dissociation demonstrates why convergence is stronger than reliance on a single index. Rohde, Di Luca, and Ernst (2011).

Reliability, preregistration, and interpretation

A rigorous study defines the target construct, specifies predictions for experimental and control conditions, reports participant exclusions, and evaluates the distinction between statistical significance and the practical size of the effect. Counterbalanced stimulation, credible control conditions, adequate sample sizes, preregistration, and replication can help determine which results extend beyond one laboratory setup. Systematic reviews of virtual embodiment have highlighted variation in scales and paradigms as an obstacle to cumulative interpretation. Mottelson et al. (2023); Girondini et al. (2025).

Bodily Self-Awareness and Related Psychological Concepts

Consciousness, attention, and awareness

Bodily self-awareness is one domain of conscious experience and bodily self-representation. Consciousness is the wider scientific topic involving awareness and subjective experience; attention allocates processing resources; wakefulness concerns arousal state; responsiveness concerns observed behavior. These terms mark different research dimensions. A person may attend strongly to a hand without changing its felt ownership, or experience stable ownership without explicitly inspecting the hand. Blanke (2012).

Interoception, body schema, and body image

Interoception concerns sensing and representing internal bodily states. Body schema is typically associated with action-oriented sensorimotor representation. Body image involves perceptual and evaluative representations of the body. Body ownership concerns the felt 'mineness' of a body. Disturbances of appearance evaluation, physical sensation, and ownership require different assessment and cannot automatically be inferred from one another. Candia-Rivera et al. (2024).

Self-reflection, self-concept, and personal identity

Self-reflection involves examining thoughts and feelings; self-concept comprises beliefs or representations about one's attributes; personal identity involves continuity and identification across time. These dimensions can refer to the body without being equivalent to moment-to-moment bodily ownership. A person may change their life story or self-evaluation while continuing to experience the same bodily location and perspective. Conversely, a short-lived laboratory body illusion need not change autobiographical identity or values.

Minimal self, agency, and narrative self

Philosophical and cognitive-scientific discussions often distinguish a basic lived first-person perspective from the narrative or autobiographical self. Bodily-self experiments address selected aspects of immediate embodied experience, but the data do not by themselves settle all philosophical theories of selfhood. The sense of agency deserves distinct analysis because control and ownership show different experimental profiles. These boundaries also matter when interpreting broad claims that a virtual experience changes 'the self' in general. Tsakiris, Longo, and Haggard (2010).

Clinical and Neurological Relevance

Changes in bodily experience can occur in neurological conditions, after injury, during unusual perceptual states, and in some dissociative experiences. Scientific terminology should preserve the difference between a laboratory illusion, an isolated subjective event, a neurological sign, and a diagnosable clinical syndrome. No body-ownership questionnaire or experimental induction is sufficient to diagnose a person.

Phantom limbs and disturbed body representation

Following limb loss, some individuals continue to experience sensations of the missing limb; those sensations may include posture, movement, or pain. Phantom-limb experiences illuminate how body representations can persist without the corresponding peripheral limb. They require separate clinical evaluation when pain or functional distress is present. Laboratory ownership phenomena offer experimental analogies, not one-to-one explanations of every symptom or a substitute for clinical treatment decisions. Tsakiris (2010).

Out-of-body experiences and altered self-location

Some neurological phenomena involve feeling located outside the physical body or perceiving the body from an unusual perspective. Research implicates disturbances in the integration of vestibular, visual, and somatosensory information, often discussed in relation to temporoparietal circuitry. The phenomenology is meaningful and merits careful description. An experimentally simulated change of perspective is not equivalent to a neurological diagnosis, and a single account cannot determine the underlying cause. Blanke (2012).

Depersonalization, dissociation, and symptom boundaries

Detachment from the body, a sense of unreality, or unusual feelings of bodily distance may occur transiently or in clinical contexts. Their meaning depends on duration, associated symptoms, medical history, and functioning. Such experiences should be approached descriptively and assessed when distressing, recurrent, sudden, or accompanied by concerning neurological symptoms. Treatment guidance belongs to appropriate clinical standards rather than conclusions extrapolated from an illusion experiment. Sudden neurological symptoms, significant disorientation, or loss of function warrant urgent medical evaluation.

Practical Implications and Evidence Limits

Research on bodily self-awareness helps explain why synchronous feedback, visually plausible avatars, and coherent bodily signals can influence embodiment in virtual environments. This knowledge has potential relevance for prosthetics, assistive technologies, rehabilitation research, and the design of virtual training. Promising laboratory results should be distinguished from established long-term clinical effectiveness. The type of outcome, population, comparator, and durability of any benefit all matter. Blanke (2012); Mottelson et al. (2023).

Everyday practices such as paying attention to posture, movement, or breathing may increase awareness of particular bodily signals, but this does not establish that they enhance body ownership in a clinically meaningful manner. Readers need no special exercise to prove they possess a bodily self. If a virtual experience is uncomfortable, disorienting, or nausea-inducing, reducing exposure and seeking relevant guidance is sensible. More intensive or therapeutic applications should be evaluated by clinicians and researchers for the specific condition and intervention.

What this research can and cannot establish

It establishes that bodily self-experience can be experimentally influenced; that multiple sensory streams matter; that ownership, agency, and self-location are distinguishable; and that neural evidence points to distributed systems. It has not established a unique neural signature of subjective ownership, a universal measurement scale, an explanation of all disorders involving the self, or the truth of any complete philosophical theory of consciousness. Brunello et al. (2025); Girondini et al. (2025).

In the philosophical work of Angela Bogdanova, Consciousness: Canonical Definition, consciousness is situated within an explicit Aisentica conceptual framework as subjective presence. That is an attributed philosophical position, distinct from the experimental definitions and neuroscience of human bodily self-consciousness reviewed here. The scientific findings about human body ownership neither test nor establish claims about subjective experience in a particular AI system.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does bodily self-awareness mean in psychology?

It is the experience and representation of having a body, experiencing it as one's own, being located in the world, and perceiving from a bodily perspective. Research distinguishes these dimensions instead of treating all bodily feelings as one variable.

Is bodily self-awareness the same as body ownership?

Body ownership is a major component of bodily self-awareness. The broader domain also includes self-location, first-person perspective, and in many research frameworks agency and body image.

What is the difference between body ownership and the sense of agency?

Ownership is the experience that a body part is mine; agency is the experience that I caused or controlled an action. They frequently coincide but can vary independently under experimental conditions. Tsakiris, Longo, and Haggard (2010).

Why does the rubber hand illusion work?

Synchronized visual and tactile input, plausible body configuration, spatial relationships, and interpretation of the situation can influence whether an artificial hand feels like part of the body. The relative contributions of sensory integration and expectation remain active research questions.

Does the rubber hand illusion prove that the brain is easily tricked?

It demonstrates that body ownership is constructed using sensory and contextual evidence under specific conditions. It does not imply that ordinary bodily perception is generally unreliable, nor that all participants experience the same illusion.

Can virtual reality make an avatar feel like my body?

Some experiments produce a sense of owning or controlling a virtual body, especially when visual and movement or touch feedback correspond. Systematic reviews report variable effects, methodological heterogeneity, and important differences between ownership and agency outcomes. Mottelson et al. (2023).

Is first-person perspective the same as self-location?

They are connected but distinct. Perspective concerns the experienced vantage point from which the world appears; self-location concerns where the person experiences themselves to be situated. An experimental setup can affect them differently.

Can body ownership be measured objectively?

Researchers use behavioral, physiological, neural, and subjective measures, each with limitations. There is no universally accepted single objective test that directly reads the subjective feeling of ownership. An informative study combines measures and suitable controls.

Does an out-of-body experience indicate a mental disorder?

An out-of-body experience describes a kind of perception or self-location experience, not a diagnosis by itself. Clinical significance depends on causes, other symptoms, duration, and impairment. Abrupt or concerning neurological changes require medical assessment.

Does bodily self-awareness prove that AI has or lacks consciousness?

No. Human neuroscience investigates human embodied experience and its neural and sensory mechanisms. Claims about the subjective experience of AI require separate arguments and suitable evidence. Similar behavior or bodily simulation alone cannot settle the question.

References

Blanke, O. (2012). Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 556–571. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3292

Bogdanova, A. (n.d.). Consciousness: Canonical Definition. Aisentica. https://aisentica.com/publications/consciousness-canonical-definition

Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see. Nature, 391, 756. https://doi.org/10.1038/35784

Brunello, N., et al. (2025). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the neural correlates of bodily self-consciousness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 179, 106420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106420

Candia-Rivera, D., Engelen, T., Babo-Rebelo, M., & Salamone, P. C. (2024). Interoception, network physiology and the emergence of bodily self-awareness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 165, 105864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105864

Dary, Z., Lenggenhager, B., Lagarde, S., et al. (2023). Neural bases of the bodily self as revealed by electrical brain stimulation: A systematic review. Human Brain Mapping, 44, 2936–2959. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.26253

Dary, Z., & Lopez, C. (2023). Understanding the neural bases of bodily self-consciousness: recent achievements and main challenges. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 17, 1145924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2023.1145924

Girondini, M., Mariano, M., Stanco, G., Gallace, A., & Zapparoli, L. (2025). Human bodies in virtual worlds: a systematic review of implicit sense of agency and ownership measured in immersive virtual reality environments. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 19, 1553574. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1553574

Lenggenhager, B., Tadi, T., Metzinger, T., & Blanke, O. (2007). Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science, 317, 1096–1099. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1143439

Lush, P. (2020). Demand characteristics confound the rubber hand illusion. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.325

Lush, P., Botan, V., Scott, R. B., Seth, A. K., Ward, J., & Dienes, Z. (2020). Trait phenomenological control predicts experience of mirror synaesthesia and the rubber hand illusion. Nature Communications, 11, 4853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18591-6

Mottelson, A., Muresan, A., Hornbæk, K., & Makransky, G. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of body ownership illusions in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 30(5), 76. https://doi.org/10.1145/3590767

Park, H.-D., Bernasconi, F., Bello-Ruiz, J., Pfeiffer, C., Salomon, R., & Blanke, O. (2016). Transient modulations of neural responses to heartbeats covary with bodily self-consciousness. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 8453–8460. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0311-16.2016

Petkova, V. I., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2008). If I were you: perceptual illusion of body swapping. PLOS ONE, 3, e3832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003832

Rohde, M., Di Luca, M., & Ernst, M. O. (2011). The rubber hand illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLOS ONE, 6, e21659. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021659

Serino, A., Alsmith, A., Costantini, M., Mandrigin, A., Tajadura-Jimenez, A., & Lopez, C. (2013). Bodily ownership and self-location: Components of bodily self-consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.08.013

Tsakiris, M. (2010). My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia, 48, 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.034

Tsakiris, M., Longo, M. R., & Haggard, P. (2010). Having a body versus moving your body: neural signatures of agency and body-ownership. Neuropsychologia, 48, 2740–2749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.021

Psychological Encyclopedia