Fig 1.
(A) Visual display of the participant’s screen during the training phase. When the cross appeared alone, the participant was told to think about nothing. When the red arrow appeared, the participant had to think about a movement of the right hand. (B) Visual display on the experimenter’s computer. On the left, the real-time prediction window and on the right, the final plot displaying the fit between the actual data and the expected data. (C) Graphical representation of the interval estimate tasks, in both the body-generated action condition (top) and the BMI-generated action condition (bottom). (D) General setup of the experiment with the robotic hand.
Table 1.
RHI questionnaire—appropriation of the robotic hand.
Fig 2.
(A) Topographical representations of the power in the mu-band and of the power in the beta-band during the training phase. The color bar represents the power difference between the imagery phase and the rest phase. 1 = 100% and -1 = -100%. (B) Graphical representation of the correlations between the classification performance and the power in the mu- and the beta-bands over C3. All tests were two-tailed. (C) Graphical representation of the correlation between the classification performance and the perceived control over the movement of the robotic hand.
Fig 3.
(A) Graphical representation of the comparison between interval estimates in the real hand condition and in the robotic hand condition. Test was two-tailed. (B) Graphical representation of the muscular activity before the keypress with the real hand or with the robotic hand. It confirmed that participants used motor imagery to make the robotic hand moving instead of their own muscle.
Fig 4.
Topographical representations of the power in the mu-band and of the power in the beta-band preceding the keypress in both the real hand condition and the robotic hand condition.
Data are displayed without baseline corrections.
Fig 5.
Topographical representations of the power in the mu-band and in the beta-band during the training session on both days.
The color bar represents the power difference between the imagery phase and the rest phase. 1 = 100% and -1 = -100%.
Fig 6.
(A) Graphical representation of the correlations between interval estimates and the perceived control over the movement of the robotic hand (left) and the difficulty to control the movement of the robotic hand (right). (B) Graphical representation of the relationship between interval estimates and body-ownership, location and agency scores over the robotic hand. All tests were two-tailed. Full lines represent a significant result and dotted lines represent a non-significant result.
Fig 7.
(A) Graphical representations of the difference between day 1 and day 2 on the classification performance scores and on the reported cognitive fatigue. All tests were two-tailed. * indicates a p between 01 and 05. ** represents a p between .001 and .01. (B) Graphical representation of the relationship between the perceived control over the robotic hand body-ownership, location and agency score. All tests were two-tailed.