Persistence of metric biases in body representation during the body ownership illusion

Min-Hee Seo; Jeh-Kwang Ryu; Byung-Cheol Kim; Sang-Bin Jeon; Kyoung-Min Lee

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272084

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 15, 2022
18 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Guido Maiello, Editor PONE-D-22-04614Persistence of Metric Biases in Body Representation during the Body Ownership IllusionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lee, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Two expert reviewers have assessed your manuscript. Both reviewers found your study to be interesting and worthwhile. Reviewer 1 provides some helpful suggestions that will improve the clarity of your manuscript. Reviewer 2 has some more critical concerns regarding the sample sizes and the questionnaire methods you employed. Both reviewers note that the differences between your Experiments 1 and 2 need to be explained and discussed in more detail. Overall, I believe it should be possible for you to address all reviewer comments, and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Guido Maiello Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The paper by Seo and colleagues proposes the research findings testing whether the dominance of vision over tactile modality is prominent during the process of inducing body ownership illusion, regardless of task type. Using a VR environment, the authors introduced spatial visuotactile incongruence (2 cm, 3 cm) in the longitudinal and transverse axes during a visuotactile localization task. Results indicated that the feeling of body ownership in the virtual hand model was more attenuated when spatial incongruence between visual and tactile stimuli occurred in the transverse axis, rather than in the longitudinal one. The authors suggest that the anisotropy in the tolerance of visuotactile incongruence may imply the persistence of metric biases in body representation. I think the study is interesting, novel and well-conducted. The analyses are appropriate and sound. I only have a few minor suggestions that I hope may improve the quality of the manuscript. - Line 51: The authors observe that the systematic metric bias might change as a function of the task type, such as template matching task, skin localization task or line length judgment task. Although they also cite some relevant references for these tasks, I believe that adding a few lines briefly describing them may help readers that are not familiar with these kinds of paradigms. - Line 223: I think that the rationale behind Experiment 2 may be better clarified. It seems that the reason for conducting a second experiment was to eliminate some confounding factors related to depth perception in a VR system. However, I think this point may be expanded particularly for readers who are not experts in VR. - Related to the previous point: (line 243) I find it a bit difficult to understand in which way the procedure of Experiment 2 differs from that of the first experiment. Could the author better clarify this aspect? - Line 235: Did participants of Experiment 2 take part also in Experiment 1? Alternatively, are the two experiments conducted on different samples? Please specify. - Results: Please report not only the significance but also the effect size for all the analyses. - Figure 3: There is a mistake. It should be T2 and T3 and not C2 and C3. Reviewer #2: Seo and colleagues investigate whether the perception of body ownership of a fake hand in VR is subject to a metric bias in body representation. Classic studies have reported an anisotropic tolerance for visuotactile mismatches, such that participants are more sensitive to mismatches along the longitudinal axis compared to the transverse. More recently, however, this anisotropy has been questioned. Seo et al. propose that task differences may be the reason for these different results and conjecture that the bias should be present in tasks where the tactile modality is relied on heavily. They test this conjecture in a VR experiment designed to (a) give participants a feeling of ownership of a virtual hand and (b) test whether this persists under visuotactile mismatches. They indeed find that incongruences between seen and felt locations of a touch to the palm result in more strongly reduced perception of body ownership when along the longitudinal compared to the transverse axis, in line with known biases in tactile perception. The authors make convincing case for why their experiments could advance our understanding of the body-ownership illusion and of body representation in different modalities in general. However, I think their data are much less clear than the manuscript currently suggests - this need not be a problem per se, but it does need to be discussed clearly and described in more detail. Major comments: 1. Frankly, rather unequal sample sizes along with a just-significant difference in a key comparison in the experiment with the larger sample (exp.2, L2-T2) do not make me confident that these results are robust. I would feel much more at ease if there was some rationale for these sample sizes, as well as a more even discussion of the findings in experiment 2, i.e., not just of the significant difference L2-T2, but also of what the non-significant difference L3-T3 might mean. 2. Perhaps I missed it, but I would ask the authors to add a discussion of the difference between the two experiments. Notably, the much less clear anisotropy in the second experiment - meant to be a methodological improvement over the first - should be explained or at least touched upon. I think such a discussion on a more general level is missing and would add more value than the present discussion of many differences between single items and conditions (ll. 311-325) that may or may not mean much and where to me, it was not always clear which experiment was referred to. If the data do not paint a clear picture that is not itself a problem, but it needs to be made clear. Minor/specific comments: 3. The fact that bias and perception of incongruence were assessed with a questionnaire took me a bit by surprise after reading the abstract and introduction. Given that different tasks are discussed at length early on, it might help clarifying what each of those measures specifically. 4. How long was each experiment? Was there one trial per condition, or multiple? 5. Providing mean scores per item, with variability, would be much preferred over the pairwise comparisons for each question that are currently given in tables 4 and 7. Similarly, these scores should be provided in the data file, which currently contains only aggregate values. 6. P-values of precisely 0 or 1 should be reported as > .001 and < .999, respectively. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Andrea Ciricugno Reviewer #2: Yes:** Karl Kopiske [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272084.r001
Revision 1
8 Jun 2022 Author Response We thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared as a word file. The responses attached below are the contents of the file submitted. Reviewer #1 Thank you for your valuable comments. Parts of the results of the manuscript were mixed with old version of manuscript. We apologize for the inattentiveness. We have revised the results section to ensure that there are no errors in the numerical values. No significant changes were made to the results and discussion sections. - Line 51: The authors observe that the systematic metric bias might change as a function of the task type, such as template matching task, skin localization task or line length judgment task. Although they also cite some relevant references for these tasks, I believe that adding a few lines briefly describing them may help readers that are not familiar with these kinds of paradigms. - Response: Thank you for your comment. We added an explanation describing the procedure of the template matching task, skin localization task (line 54-56), and line length judgment task (line 64-66) in the manuscript. The line numbers are based on clear version of the manuscript. “In the template matching task, the participants compared the width of their own hands visually with the picture of the hand, while the localization task requested them to indicate the perceived location of the tip of the index finger on the board occluding their hands to block vision.” “During the LLJ task, the participants judged whether the length of the displayed line was shorter or longer than the perceived length of their index finger.” - Line 223: I think that the rationale behind Experiment 2 may be better clarified. It seems that the reason for conducting a second experiment was to eliminate some confounding factors related to depth perception in a VR system. However, I think this point may be expanded particularly for readers who are not experts in VR. - Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the reason for conducting a second experiment in the discussion section of Experiment 1. The second experiment was conducted to eliminate two confounding factors related to VR. First, the pattern of anisotropy can be confounded by the factors influencing the depth perception in VR. Specifically, when the hand of participants was laid in a flat position, the perception of distance in a longitudinal direction can be underestimated because of the differences in VR as compared to a real scene. In experiment 1, participants laid their hands flat on the table. However, this posture can cause an underestimation of distance perception in the longitudinal axis due to the shortcomings of the VR environment. For the accurate distance perception in the longitudinal axis, the depth cues should be presented like in a real-world scene. Due to the technological issue, participants in VR did not experience the full gamut of depth cues that were available in viewing a real world. The underestimation of depth in VR has been reported in previous studies (20-22). Second, the minute shaking of the virtual hand due to the tracking problem that was caused by the body of the experimenter and the acrylic cylinder blocking the base station may have influenced the accuracy of distance perception. To eliminate the confounding factors, we conducted a second experiment. In the second experiment, participants raised their hands from the table and looked down at their own hands vertically. The horizontal line of sight was perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hands. In addition, the position of the virtual hand was fixed after the start position of the stick was ready to minimize the tracking error. - Related to the previous point: (line 243) I find it a bit difficult to understand in which way the procedure of Experiment 2 differs from that of the first experiment. Could the author better clarify this aspect? - Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The difference in procedure in Experiment 2 was clarified by adding the reason for the posture change to the participants’ hands in the discussion section of Experiment 1. Unlike Experiment 1, participants raised their hands from the surface of the desk and looked down at their own hands to minimize the influence of the depth perception. The procedure of Experiment 2 was described in more detail by adding the procedure section. - Line 235: Did participants of Experiment 2 take part also in Experiment 1? Alternatively, are the two experiments conducted on different samples? Please specify. - Response: Thank you for your comment. New participants were recruited for Experiment 2, therefore, they were not a part of Experiment 1 and the sample for both experiments were different. We have clarified the same in the participants sub-section of Experiment 2. - Results: Please report not only the significance but also the effect size for all the analyses. - Response: Thank you for your comment. For the Friedman test, we calculated Kandall’s W as an index of the effect size. For the post-hoc analysis for the Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, the Z-score, previously reported in Tables 4 and 7, was divided by √n(n=sample size) as an index of the effect size. This value is a nonparametric version of Pearson’s r correlation. The values have been described in the results sections and the tables related to the analysis. - Figure 3: There is a mistake. It should be T2 and T3 and not C2 and C3. - Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have revised the letters in figure 3. Reviewer #2 Thank you for your valuable comments. Parts of the results in the previous manuscript were mixed with old version of manuscript. We apologize for the inattentiveness. We have revised the results section to ensure that there are no errors in the numerical values. No significant changes were made to the results and discussion sections. Major comments: 1. Frankly, rather unequal sample sizes along with a just-significant difference in a key comparison in the experiment with the larger sample (exp.2, L2-T2) do not make me confident that these results are robust. I would feel much more at ease if there was some rationale for these sample sizes, as well as a more even discussion of the findings in experiment 2, i.e., not just of the significant difference L2-T2, but also of what the non-significant difference L3-T3 might mean. - Response: Thank you for your comment. The size of sample size for the Friedman test in experiment 2 was calculated based on the parameters from experiment 1. The effect size of experiment 1 was 0.406 (Kendall’s W) and the nonsphericity correction epsilon was 0.687 (we used Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon for the conservative correction). The sample size was calculated by Gpower to achieve the power of 0.8 and the result was 26. Therefore, we set a goal to recruit 30 participants for experiment 2. However, due to the exclusion of participants who did not meet the analysis criteria, the final sample size was 29, which was still over 26. Regarding the robustness of the key comparison, we added the effect size of the Friedman test. The effect size of results in experiment 2 was 0.599, which falls in the moderate strength of effect size. Furthermore, the results of the post-hoc tests showed effect size (\|Z\|/√N, N=sample size) of 0.617 at T2-L2 comparison which is the nonparametric version of Pearson’s r correlation. Value over 0.5 is considered to be a large effect size. Based on these indices, we think that the results of experiment 2 can be considered quite robust. The discussion about the robustness of the anisotropy was added to the general discussion section (line 352-376). The line numbers are based on the clear version of the manuscript. We also balanced the discussion about the results in the general discussion section. The discussion about the non-significant results of L3-T3 was added in line 332-334 of the clear version of the manuscript. We interpreted the results that 3cm of spatial incongruence was sufficient to abort BOI in both the transverse and longitudinal axis. 2. Perhaps I missed it, but I would ask the authors to add a discussion of the difference between the two experiments. Notably, the much less clear anisotropy in the second experiment - meant to be a methodological improvement over the first - should be explained or at least touched upon. I think such a discussion on a more general level is missing and would add more value than the present discussion of many differences between single items and conditions (ll. 311-325) that may or may not mean much and where to me, it was not always clear which experiment was referred to. If the data do not paint a clear picture that is not itself a problem, but it needs to be made clear. - Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the procedure section for experiment 2 to describe the differences. In addition, we have explained the difference between experiment 1 and experiment 2 in the first paragraph of the general discussion section. The major difference was the hand posture of participants. In experiment 1, participants laid their hands flat on the table. However, this posture can cause an underestimation of distance perception in the longitudinal axis due to the shortcomings of the VR environment. For the accurate distance perception in the longitudinal axis, the depth cues should be presented like in a real-world scene. Due to the technological issue, participants in VR did not experience the full gamut of depth cues that were available in viewing a real world. The underestimation of depth in VR has been reported in previous studies (20-22). To exclude the confounding factor, participants raised their hands from the table and looked down at their own hands vertically. The horizontal line of sight was perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hands. The discussion about the less clear anisotropy in the second experiment, despite the methodological improvement, was added in the general discussion section (line 352-376). The line numbers are based on the clear version of the manuscript. Since the possibility of distance underestimation in the longitudinal axis was eliminated in experiment 2, the score of L2 and L3 dropped and variance was increased. The variance increase could have originated from the individual difference in 2 point-discrimination threshold. Although the anisotropy appeared less prominent due to the removal of the confounding factor regarding underestimation of depth, the anisotropy was reproduced in experiment 2 with moderate strength of effect size. We think this reproduction strengthens the point that the anisotropy did not result due to the VR depth underestimation. Lastly, the comparisons of scores between the single items were revised to be clearer for understanding. We described that the discussion of differences in single items of the questionnaire is referring to experiment 2 (line 377). The line numbers are based on the clear version of the manuscript. Minor/specific comments: 3. The fact that bias and perception of incongruence were assessed with a questionnaire took me a bit by surprise after reading the abstract and introduction. Given that different tasks are discussed at length early on, it might help clarifying what each of those measures specifically. - Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the questionnaire section by adding the explanation of the measurements for each item in Table 1. Explanation about what Q2 measures were revised to the measurement of referral of touch which appears more appropriate and the change was reflected in the discussion. 4. How long was each experiment? Was there one trial per condition, or multiple? - Response: Thank you for your comment. We described the length of each experiment and the trial per condition in the procedure section. Both experiments lasted approximately 45 minutes until the procedure was complete. There was one trial per condition. 5. Providing mean scores per item, with variability, would be much preferred over the pairwise comparisons for each question that are currently given in tables 4 and 7. Similarly, these scores should be provided in the data file, which currently contains only aggregate values. - Response: Thank you for your comment. We added the table about mean scores and variability per item in the manuscript. There were typing mistakes in the Q2 score in the longitudinal condition. We reanalyzed the Wilcoxon signed-rank test per item and confirmed that there was no change in the significance and non-significance of the results. The updated data was recently uploaded to Mendeley (link: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/257zj3m2sr/1, DOI: 10.17632/257zj3m2sr.1). 6. P-values of precisely 0 or 1 should be reported as > .001 and < .999, respectively. - Response: Thank you for your comment. We have edited the p-value of precisely 0 or 1 to > .001 and < .999 in the results section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_submit.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272084.r002
27 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Guido Maiello, Editor PONE-D-22-04614R1Persistence of Metric Biases in Body Representation during the Body Ownership IllusionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lee, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Reviewer 2 has one final minor suggestion. I am giving you the chance to incorporate this small change to the abstract, but I don't anticipate the need for further review. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Guido Maiello Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and much improved. My one remaining issue is that it should be clear from the abstract that the main measure in this study was a questionnaire. Other than that, I have no more comments. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272084.r003
Revision 2
8 Jul 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer #2 - My one remaining issue is that it should be clear from the abstract that the main measure in this study was a questionnaire. : Thank you for your comment. We added the lines to the abstract about the usage of a questionnaire as the main measurement method in the study (line 37-38). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272084.r004
13 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Guido Maiello, Editor Persistence of Metric Biases in Body Representation during the Body Ownership Illusion PONE-D-22-04614R2 Dear Dr. Lee, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Guido Maiello Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272084.r005
Formally Accepted
15 Jul 2022 Acceptance Letter - Guido Maiello, Editor PONE-D-22-04614R2 Persistence of Metric Biases in Body Representation during the Body Ownership Illusion Dear Dr. Lee: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Guido Maiello Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272084.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .