Read on Twitter
The fact that an experimental model of body-ownership such as the RHI can reflect such variability is welcome news rather than bad news (even if the @PeterLush4 analysis were correct....). Here's why (follow thread) https://twitter.com/anilkseth/status/1319019705429073923
The study by @PeterLush4 et al shows that suggestibility explains ~ 9% of the variance in the self-reported experience of the RHI in the synchronous illusion ONLY. A closer look at the data ....
shows that there is NO significant correlation between suggestibility and the difference in self-report between synchronous & asynchronous. @PeterLush4 have argued that (a) async is not good control and (b) 20 top-cited paper do not do so. Is that so?
While (a) may be true if one focuses on suggestibility, it is not appropriate when one wants to control for synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation over and above the mere presence of visuo-tactile stimulation. As for (b) it is factually wrong
Besides, a powerful demonstration of the importance & utility of sync/asyn manipulation comes from @CostantiniM75 @_FrancescaFerri showing how the precise temporal rule fits well with the temporal window of integration of multisensory cortical neurons https://tinyurl.com/y6zxtagp
But even if we were to look at significant differences of synchronous condition only against 0 (as the authors suggest), each quartile in their sample shows the expected significant difference against zero.
If one were to agree with @PeterLush4 et al analytic approach, what the data show is that across the range of suggestibility people experience a change in body-ownership as a result of the RHI albeit in different degrees.
Past studies that looked at individual differences (and there are many) tried to refine our understanding of body-ownership/RHI, this tries to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is that warranted by the data ?
How should we then think about the findings ? There is no doubt that bottom-up & top-down factors influence the RHI (as is the case for all phenomena we study), and I welcome the @PeterLush4 study. Such factors also influence our normal everyday life of embodiment.
This is why the fact that an experimental model of body-ownership such as the RHI can account for such variability is welcome news rather than bad news.
you can find the original paper by @PeterLush4 here : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18591-6
data can be found here https://osf.io/huwxd/ in case you want to have a go
and reviewers comments and responses can be found here : https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-020-18591-6/MediaObjects/41467_2020_18591_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
disclaimer : i did not review that paper, but i reviewed another paper from the group and I signed my review
