Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Figure 1.

The Head-Mounted Display and Tracking.

(A) Participants experienced the virtual environment through a stereo wide field-of-view Head Mounted Display. (B) Upper limbs were tracked by 12 Optitrack markers grouped in 4 trackable objects. The right and left forearms were tracked for all participants. For right handed people, the right hand and the left index finger were also tracked. For left handed people, the positions of the markers were swapped and thus the right finger and the left hand were tracked.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Spatial configuration of the physical and virtual scene.

(A) There were two physical boxes, the Stimulus Box shown on the right and Angle Box shown on the left. For left handed people the positions of the boxes were swapped. (B) A plastic ring was attached on top of the Angle Box. The participant was asked to put his or her dominant hand on the Stimulus Box and the other one on the Angle Box with the elbow in the plastic ring. (C) There were virtual replicas of the physical boxes. (D) In all Congruent conditions, the virtual dominant hand of the participant was seen to touch the virtual Stimulus Box corresponding to the real hand touching the real Stimulus Box. In these conditions, when the participant moved the hand over the surface of the Stimulus Box feeling its material, the same movement was made and the same tactile feedback was seen. (E) In the Incongruent condition, the virtual Stimulus Box was placed 4 meters frontwards. (F) Therefore, although the virtual movement was the same as the physical, the virtual hand was never seen to touch the virtual replica of the Stimulus Box.

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Table 1.

The Experiment Conditions.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 3.

Estimation of the position of dominant hand using the non dominant arm.

(A) The two limbs were aligned as shown pointing forward as shown, in the case shown here the dominant hand was the right hand. (B) The participant was instructed to rotate the non dominant arm to point with the index finger towards where they felt the other hand to be. The position of the elbow was restricted by the plastic ring. The angle was recorded. Each participant repeated this 10 times before elongation (to give the mean AngleBefore) and once after the elongation (to give the AngleAfter) for conditions C2, C3 and C4.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Figure 4.

The elongation of the virtual arm and the threat event to the virtual hand.

(A) At the start of the experiment, both virtual arms were of the same size as the participant’s arms. In C1 the virtual arm did not change length during the experiment. (B) The arm elongated to double the true length (C2) (C) The arm elongated to triple the true length (C3) (D) The arm elongated to four times the true length (C4). When the elongation was complete for the condition and after the last angular estimation was made, a virtual saw fell to cut the virtual arm. The participants had been instructed to stay motionless just before this. (E) The position of the virtual threat was also close to the physical body and the real hand in the no elongation condition C1 (F) The threat was far from the real body and real hand in condition C4.

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Table 2.

Comparison of Questionnaire Responses of the Congruent (C1) and Incongruent Conditions (I) with Virtual Arm Length Equal to Real Arm Length.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Means and Standard Errors of S (meters) for the Incongruent and Congruent Condition with Virtual Arm Length Equal to Real Arm Length.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Figure 5.

Estimated probabilities of the scores on the illusion of ownership (Q3).

The probabilities are estimated from the fitted values of the ordered logistic regression of the Q3 scores on elongation.

More »

Figure 5 Expand

Table 4.

Frequency Table of Ownership by Elongation.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Figure 6.

Means and Standard Errors of the Angular drifts for the elongation conditions.

AngleBefore is the mean of 10 estimations of hand position at the start of the experiment. AngleAfter is the single estimation of hand position after the arm elongation period. AngleAfter is significantly greater than AngleBefore for C2 (P = 0.04) and C3 (P = 0.01) but not for C4 (P = 0.17), Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests.

More »

Figure 6 Expand

Table 5.

Means and Standard Errors of the Hand Tracking Dispersions (meters) under the 4 elongation conditions.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Figure 7.

Scatter diagram of the Saw Time dispersion on the Control Time Dispersion by Elongation Condition on a log-log scale.

More »

Figure 7 Expand

Table 6.

Robust Regression for E(log Ls) = β0 + β1 elongation + β2 log Lc + β3 elongation log Lc

More »

Table 6 Expand

Figure 8.

Path analysis diagram.

The boxes represent the variables where elongation is 1 to 4, ownership is the response on Q3, harmed is the response on Q7, and and are the dispersions in Control Time and Saw Time. The variable longerarm is the response on Q6, and anglediff is AngleBefore-AngleAfter. The paths represent the regression lines, where, for example, where The circles represent the random error terms and the corresponding numbers are the variances of the errors.

More »

Figure 8 Expand

Table 7.

Path Model Estimates Corresponding to Figure 8.

More »

Table 7 Expand