The attribution for Fig 1A was incorrectly omitted. The publisher apologizes for this error.
Please see the complete, correct Fig 1 caption here.
Diagram (A) and photograph (B) of the setup. Two PHANToMTM force-feedback devices with paintbrush endings stroke the participant's occluded hand and the visible rubber hand. For testing proprioceptive drift, a probe dot is projected into the visual field using the CRT monitor and a semi-silvered mirror. The participant in (B) has given written informed consent, as outlined in the PLOS consent form, to publication of their photograph. C: The experimental procedure. D: Calibration points and lines along which strokes were applied, as well as temperature measurement location. Image for Fig 1A is courtesy of Rohde M, Di Luca M, Ernst MO (2011) The Rubber Hand Illusion: Feeling of Ownership and Proprioceptive Drift Do Not Go Hand in Hand. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21659. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021659.
- 1. Rohde M, Wold A, Karnath H-O, Ernst MO (2013) The Human Touch: Skin Temperature during the Rubber Hand Illusion in Manual and Automated Stroking Procedures. PLoS ONE 8(11): e80688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080688 pmid:24260454
Citation: The PLOS ONE Staff (2017) Correction: The Human Touch: Skin Temperature during the Rubber Hand Illusion in Manual and Automated Stroking Procedures. PLoS ONE 12(12): e0189567. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189567
Published: December 7, 2017
Copyright: © 2017 The PLOS ONE Staff. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.