Characterizing first and third person viewpoints and their alternation for embodied interaction in virtual reality
Characterizing first and third person viewpoints and their alternation for embodied interaction in virtual reality
Henrique Galvan Debarba 0 1 2 3
Sidney Bovet 1 2 3
Roy Salomon 1 3
Olaf Blanke 0 1 3
Bruno Herbelin 0 1 3
Ronan Boulic 1 2 3
0 Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Brain Mind Institute, Ecole Polytechnique FeÂdeÂrale de Lausanne , Geneva, Switzerland, 3 Center for Neuroprosthetics , Ecole Polytechnique FeÂ deÂ rale de Lausanne , Geneva, Switzerland, 4 Artanim Foundation, Geneva , Switzerland , 5 Gonda Brain Research Center, Bar Illan University , Ramat Gan , Israel , 6 Department of Neurology, University Hospital Geneva , Geneva , Switzerland
1 Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur FoÈrderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung , 200021_140910, Ronan Boulic, Olaf Blanke, Bruno Herbelin. Roy Salomon was supported by an Israeli Science foundation grant, ISF 1169/17
2 Immersive Interaction Group, Ecole Polytechnique FeÂ deÂ rale de Lausanne , Lausanne , Switzerland
3 Editor: Michel Botbol, Universite de Bretagne Occidentale , FRANCE
Empirical research on the bodily self has shown that the body representation is malleable, and prone to manipulation when conflicting sensory stimuli are presented. Using Virtual Reality (VR) we assessed the effects of manipulating multisensory feedback (full body control and visuo-tactile congruence) and visual perspective (first and third person perspective) on the sense of embodying a virtual body that was exposed to a virtual threat. We also investigated how subjects behave when the possibility of alternating between first and third person perspective at will was presented. Our results support that illusory ownership of a virtual body can be achieved in both first and third person perspectives under congruent visuomotor-tactile condition. However, subjective body ownership and reaction to threat were generally stronger for first person perspective and alternating condition than for third person perspective. This suggests that the possibility of alternating perspective is compatible with a strong sense of embodiment, which is meaningful for the design of new embodied VR experiences.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
The experience of embodiment, or bodily self-consciousnessÐthe pre-reflective sensation of
being the subject of an experienceÐcomes from the coherent multisensory integration taking
place in the brain and relates to the notion of an egocentric first person perspective on the self
[1±5]. One feels embodied due ªto the ensemble of sensations that arise in conjunction with
being inside, having, and controlling a bodyº [
] (p. 374). It is proposed that the sense of
embodiment emerges from three central components [
], namely (i) the sense of agency, i.e.
feeling of motor control over the body; (ii) the sense of body ownership, i.e. feeling that a
perceived body is one's own body; and (iii) self-location, i.e. the experienced location of the self.
Although we experience our body as a consistent and seemingly immutable representation of
our self in space, experimental protocols have shown that the sense of embodiment is much
more malleable than commonly assumed. Conflicting multimodal stimulation can temporarily
change how one perceives properties of their own body (i.e. an altered bodily
self-consciousness). Notably, it can lead to the illusion of owning a fakeÐeither material or virtualÐlimb
[8±14], body [15±17], and even another individuals' body [
In the rubber hand illusion [
], the synchronous stroking of a visible rubber hand and
the occluded real hand provides visuo-tactile congruence to the subject, while causing a
visuoproprioceptive conflict. That is, the subject sees the rubber hand being stroked at the same
place and time as she feels the stroke in the real hand, but the position of the rubber hand is
offset relative to the proprioceptive perception of the real hand. As the brain tries to make
sense of the multisensory incongruence, the conflict is often solved favoring the visuo-tactile
congruence, and the subject feels ownership over the fake limb, which is accompanied by the
feeling that the real hand is now located closer to the rubber hand (i.e. the congruent
visuo-tactile stimulation induces alterations to the proprioceptive mapping). Additionally, this illusion
can also be induced when active or passive movements of the hand (i.e. visuo-motor or
visuoproprioceptive congruence) are used in lieu of the tactile stimulation [
13, 20, 21
alterations to the bodily self are not limited to body parts. Research using cameras and virtual
reality (VR) demonstrated that a whole alien body can be felt as ones' own bodyÐin a full
body ownership illusionÐwhen visual, tactile and proprioceptive information match [
Such changes in the experience of body ownership are often accompanied by changes in
physiological processing such as skin temperature [
] and increase in galvanic skin responses
when the alien body is threatened .
The perspective from which the body is seen is another important aspect of illusory body
ownership. The ownership over a body through multisensory congruence has been achieved
using both first person perspective (1PP) [16±18] and third person perspective (3PP) [15, 19,
25±27], and differences in the ability to achieve it in 3PP were described [
]. In the
experiment proposed by , a 3PP image of a body is presented to the subject through a Head
Mounted Display (HMD). A visuo-tactile stimulation synchronously delivered to the back of
the subject and to the image of the body was shown to increase the sense of body ownership
and to drift self-location closer to the seen body. This was not the case when the stimulation
was asynchronous (i.e. with temporal mismatch between felt and seen stroking). In a follow up
study, Slater et al. [
] directly compared 1PP and 3PP, and have further suggested that
perspective is not only relevant, but also has a greater effect size on the reported sense of body
ownership than the synchronous visuo-tactile stimulation.
In this paper we use VR to assess the effect of congruent visuo-motor-tactile feedback (full
body control and haptic feedback vs. pre-recorded movements, which we refer to as VMT and
¬VMT conditions) and perspective (1PP and 3PP conditions) to the sense of embodiment of a
virtual body. We additionally investigate how subjects behave when the possibility of
alternating perspective at will is presented (ALT condition), and how the reported sense of
embodiment of the virtual body in this condition compares to 1PP and 3PP alone. The ALT condition
is proposed in order to integrate the advantages of both 1PP and 3PP viewpoints of the virtual
avatar in a seamless experience of the virtual environment. The experiment consists of a series
of tasks (reaching to targets, walk a few meters forward, feel a passive haptics device) that the
subject had to perform (VMT condition) or watch the virtual body performing (¬VMT
condition), and end up by exposing the subject to a virtual pit threat. Therefore, this study adds a
new dimension to the consistency of multisensory cues by allowing the motor control of the
whole virtual body with a natural mapping, including global aspects such as walking in the
virtual environment and tactile congruence of the feet with floor and the beams of a platform.
2 / 19
The first objective of this experiment is to assess the viability of embodiment in 3PP
when rich multisensory congruence is provided (congruent visuo-motor-tactile or not,
VMT/¬VMT), and how it contrasts with 1PP. From a VR standpoint, 3PP allows taking a new
and potentially more informative point of view within a VR application, such as for training
[30±32]. For instance, 3PP is often employed in non-immersive virtual environments such as
video games to increase awareness of the environment and threats to the player, thus
overcoming field of view limitations of 1PP. In VR, the use of 3PP viewpoints have been recommended
to help setting the posture of a motion controlled virtual body [
], and to compensate for the
compression of distance perception inherent to immersion systems such as large stereoscopic
]. The problem is that 3PP is not the natural condition in which subjects
experience their real bodies, and might consequently lower the sense of ownership over the virtual
body. The question is therefore to know if these benefits of 3PP could be exploited without
detrimental consequences on the ability to embody an avatar.
This experiment secondly explores how subjects behave when the possibility of alternating
between points of view in VR applications is presented, and how this affects their subjective
sense of embodiment of the virtual body. Combining the best of the two approaches, 1PP
maximizing embodiment and 3PP providing awareness of the surrounding, would open new
possibilities in the design of Virtual Reality interaction. For instance, a VR experience could be
started and developed in 1PP, and at moments where an overview of a situation, and the
physical relation of the avatar with the environment is required, a temporary transition to 3PP
could be conducted. Our hypothesis is that the rich multisensory congruence as well as the
possibility of switching perspective at will can mitigate the negative effect of 3PP viewpoint to
the sense of body ownership.
Materials and methods
Equipment and software
An Oculus development kit 2 HMD was used to display a virtual scene (960 x 1080 pixels per
eye, 100Ê field of view, 75 Hz). Head tracking was performed using its inertial sensors (low
latency) and corrected for drift around the vertical axis using optical tracking.
A pair of Bose1 QuietComfort 15 headphones was used for environmental noise canceling
and to provide unlocalized white noise, thus phonically isolating the user from the real
environment. Using a microphone, the experimenter could talk to the subjects directly through the
headphones and provide instructions throughout the experiment.
A Nintendo1 Wii remote controller was used to allow the subjects to trigger when they
would like to switch the perspective in the alternating condition. The Wii remote was also
used for the mental ball drop task (see Response Variables). Subjects held the controller in
their right hand. For consistency, the virtual avatar also held a similar object with the right
Galvanic skin response (GSR) was acquired using a g.GSRsensor connected to a g.
USBamp amplifier (g1.tec) and recorded with the OpenViBE software [
A Phasespace Impulse X2 optical tracking system was used for motion capture. Our
Phasespace system uses 14 cameras and 40 markers attached to a motion capture suit and to the
HMD. A VRPN [
] server interfaced the capture system (updated at 240 Hz) to the rendering
engine (75Hz). An in-house analytical inverse kinematics implementation was employed to
reconstruct the posture of the subject [
], which reinforces co-location of end effectors
(hands and feet) with the equivalent physical markers. Fingers were not animated and were
kept in a neutral pose. The body reconstruction latency from capture to render was
approximately 40 to 50ms. To account for body size variability, a calibration based on a standard
3 / 19
Fig 1. Experiment setup and scene overview. (a) The subject was fit with a motion capture suit, an Oculus DK2, GSR sensors
and a Wii remote. Note that this picture was staged with one of the authors for illustrative purposes, during the experiment the
lights were off and the projection display, which in the picture presents the point of view of the subject, was not used. (b) Presents
an overview of the virtual scene.
posture (T-stance) was performed until head, trunk and lower/upper limbs of the virtual body
were adjusted in scale and orientation to closely match the real body.
A physical object and its virtual representation were used to convey congruent visuo-tactile
stimulation when walking over the pit. This manipulation is known as passive haptics, when a
seen virtual object has a physical equivalent, which is calibrated to spatially match, thus
rendering accurate tactile sensations. This device is made of wood and its dimensions are 140cm ×
40cm × 10cm. Fig 1a shows an overview of the experimental environment and the equipment
the subject had to wear. Note that the picture shown in Fig 1a was staged for illustrative
purposes. During the experiment the lights were off, and the
The virtual environment was developed using Unity 3D, and was inspired by the pit
room proposed by Meehan et al. [
]. It featured a main room and a 10m deep virtual pit.
The main room was 3.4 meter high and slightly smaller in surface than the captured space.
A virtual mirror was placed over the pit, facing the virtual body. For each session, the pit was
initially covered by a wooden floor. A wooden ramp was located in the center of the scene.
During a session run, the floor covering the pit would eventually fall (at the command of the
experimenter), revealing the pit to the subject and leaving the virtual body standing on the
wooden ramp overseeing the pit. An overview of the virtual environment is presented in
The experiment had two manipulated variables and followed a mixed factorial design, with
multisensory congruence as the between-subject variable and perspective as the within-subject
variable. Multisensory congruence was treated as a between-subject variable for two reasons.
First, the ¬VMT condition requires pre-recording movements from the VMT sessions, which
is optimally achieved and randomized by using recording of the VMT group for the ¬VMT
4 / 19
group. Second, in previous work studying the influence of perspective change and
visuomotor congruence on agency, body ownership and self-location [
], we have observed a
limitation of the within subject design leading to a potential ceiling effect and under-evaluation of
the perspective factor with respect to the congruence one. Conversely, within subject design
was selected for the perspective factor as it limits the number of subjects, thus balancing the
experimental time with the long preparation time needed for each subject.
Response variables were determined in order to assess components of the sense of
embodiment, consisting of an embodiment questionnaire, the variation of GSR following a threat
event, and a mental imagery task where the subject had to estimate the time an hypothetical
ball would take to hit the ground (mental ball dropÐMBD). The response variables are
detailed later in the paper.
Multisensory congruence factor. Subjects were assigned to one of two equally sized
groups. The first group performed the experiment in a congruent visuo-motor-tactile
condition (VMT group), in which subjects could control the movement of the virtual body, had to
perform a sequence of tasks and could interact with a passive haptic device that stands in
between the virtual body and the bottom of the pit. The second group could not control the
virtual body (¬VMT group), instead subjects were placed standing at the starting position and
had to watch the virtual body moving as recorded from subjects in the VMT group. The lack
of visuo-proprioceptive congruence with the virtual body is expected to negatively impact the
senses of agency and ownership of the virtual body. As the motion recordings of the VMT
group were necessary for the ¬VMT condition, we ran all subjects of that group before
proceeding to the second group. The subjects in the ¬VMT group also wore the motion capture
suit, thus allowing for similar GSR recording conditions.
Note that subjects in the ¬VMT group could still control the rotation of the virtual camera.
This aspect was kept across groups because it is critical to prevent cybersickness, which is
mainly attributed to the sensory mismatch of visual and vestibular systems [
when visual movement is present in the lack of its vestibular counterpart. In contrast, the
position of the virtual camera had to be driven by the data recorded during the VMT sessions in
order to grant consistent viewpoint location relative to the virtual body experienced by the
VMT group. We assessed a smaller risk of sickness in this case as translations often results in
smaller changes to the visual flow than rotations. As a result, subjects in the ¬VMT group
experienced partially congruent sensorimotor feedback of the virtual camera.
Perspective factor. Each subject repeated the experimental session three times, once for
each perspective condition: first person perspective (1PP), third person perspective (3PP), and
a novel one in which the subject could alternate between 1PP and 3PP at will (ALT). This
alternation of perspective required the implementation of a transition phase which was carefully
designed to prevent cybersickness. Three different approaches were considered and tested. In
the first one, camera followed for a second a parametric curve with accelerating and
decelerating phases in order to avoid interpenetration with the virtual body. This was however not
efficient as it required a long trajectory and continuous changes in the direction of movement and
gave the false impression of real movement to the subject (some subjects would try to
compensate and lose balance). The second alternative was teleportation which entirely avoids
translation. However, teleportation is known to cause disorientation [
] and to affect subjects'
ability to immediately resume a task on the new point of view. Finally, we opted in favor of a
very fast (200 ms) straight line translation of the camera (Fig 2ALT). The vision was slightly
blurred during movement, making it unlikely that subjects could perceive interpenetration
with the virtual body. This approach allowed subjects to quickly resume their action after a
transition. None of our subjects reported feeling sickness with this transition.
5 / 19
Fig 2. Perspective conditions. The subject could experience the scene in three different conditions: (1PP) first person perspective; (3PP) third person
perspective; or (ALT) be free to alternate between 1PP and 3PP. When in the alternate condition, subject were asked to perform at least 3 perspective
The position of the camera in 1PP lies in between the eyes of the virtual body (Fig 21PP).
The position of the 3PP camera was shifted 120cm toward the back of the scene and moving
relatively to the head of the virtual body (Fig 23PP). This way, in 3PP condition, the virtual
body is exposed to the threat of the pit while the virtual camera remains over a safe area (the
floor, Fig 1b). In the ALT session, subjects could decide when to trigger the perspective switch
by pressing a Wii remote button with the right thumb. They were instructed to perform this
action at least three times during the session. The perspective presentation order was
An experimental session was divided into 4 stages: REACH, WALK, WAIT and OBSERVE.
REACH: the subject had to reach 12 targets appearing around him/her (Fig 3a). There were
six ground and six air-targets activated one after the other in a shuffled order. Between each
target reach the subject had to place back both feet on a central target. The targets were placed
such that they were at equal distance to the central target (ground targets), and to the chest of
the participants (air targets).
WALK: a 13th target eventually lights up in front of the wooden ramp, inviting the subject
to walk from the initial position to the edge of the ramp, i.e. on the passive haptic device
(Fig 3b). The central target and the front of the ramp were separated by 2.1 meters.
WAIT: once the subjects arrive to the end of the ramp, they were orally instructedÐthrough
their headphonesÐto feel the edges of the ramp with their feet, sensing the passive haptic
device while observing the virtual body simultaneously touching it (Fig 3c). During this event
the experimenter would press a button, and the floor would fall down within 1 to 5 seconds
(random), with a cracking sound (Fig 3d).
OBSERVE: the floor fall event marked the transition to the OBSERVE stage. In this stage
the subjects were asked to read some words in the pit wall opposite to where the virtual body
stands, so that they had to face the pit.
For the ¬VMT group the virtual body was driven by the data recorded from the VMT
group. No passive haptic device was used and the subject did not have to act to complete the
session. The subject was told that the virtual body would move by itself, and that (s)he should
6 / 19
Fig 3. Overview of the session stages. (a) First the subject has to reach for targets that can appear either in the air or in the floor (REACH stage); (b) a
final target invites the subject to walk to the wood platform (WALK); (c) once on the platform, the subject is asked to feel the edges with their feet (WAIT);
(d) finally, the wooden floor beneath the platform collapses, revealing the pit to the subject (OBSERVE). Subjects in the ¬VMT group do not perform these
task, instead they watch recordings from the VMT group. The session was followed by the mental ball drop (MBD) task and an embodiment questionnaire.
pay attention to what the virtual body was doing. The camera position also moved according
to the recording, but the camera rotation could still be controlled by the subject. We kept this
level of control due to its critical role preventing cybersickness [
]. The session started with a
short communication, and further communication followed to remind subjects to pay
attention to the virtual body, and that they could not control it (in case they tried to). To assign the
recordings to subjects in the ¬VMT group we have paired VMT and ¬VMT subjects, the
pairing was random and assured that the subjects in both groups were assigned to the same
perspective order, i.e. a ¬VMT subject that did the experiment in the 1PP, 3PP and ALT order
used the recording of a VMT subject who did the experiment in that same order. We had to
repeat some of the VMT group recordings due to a technical issues with the recording software
used for the first 5 subjects.
Questionnaire. A questionnaire was designed to assess the senses of agency, body
ownership, self-location and the effectiveness of the floor fall threat. It contains 10 questions, two
related to each of the four measurements, and two controls. Questions were formulated based
on related experimental protocols [
7, 15, 39
] and are presented in Table 1. The answers were
given in a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ªStrongly DISAGREEº (-3) to ªStrongly AGREEº
(+3). We use the mean of the two related questions as the score of the four main response
variablesÐ ownership, agency, self-location and threat Ð, and the raw value for the two control
question variablesÐ more bodies and turning virtual. The questions were presented after each
session in a random order.
7 / 19
Galvanic skin response. GSR was recorded to assess physiological responses to the threat
(floor fall event). We expect a GSR increase due to the threat, and the magnitude of this
increase to correlate with the sense of body ownership. This type of measurement has been
shown to be valid in stressful virtual environments by Meehan et al. [
], being present in the
GSR signal of a subject even after multiple exposures. The electrodes were placed on the index
and ring fingers of the subject and the GSR was recorded at a sampling rate of 512 observations
per second. Our GSR response variable is defined as the difference between the median GSR
in the interval between 1 and 6 seconds following the floor fall event, minus the median GSR
in the 5 seconds preceding this event. Median GSR was preferred because some subjects
presented a response that could vary beyond the 6μS (microsiemens) recording window that
our setup allowed. A sample GSR recording for a complete session is presented in S1 Fig.
Mental ball drop. MBD is a mental imagery task adapted from [
]. In this task, the
subject estimates the time a ball would take to fall down from their hand to the floor. This
measurement was performed at the end of each session, when the virtual body was standing on the
wooden ramp at the top of the pit. The MBD is meant to detect whether the subject have
similar time estimation in 1PP and 3PP. Consistently shorter times in 3PP could indicate weak
sense of self-location, as the subject might be using the bottom of the pit in 1PP, and the floor
under the camera in 3PP.
Before performing this task the screen turned black, and the measurement was then
performed with the subjects unaware of their surrounding. Subjects were instructed to press and
hold the trigger button of the Wii remote controller to release the virtual ball, and to release
the trigger button when they estimated that the ball have reached the floor. Subjects were not
instructed about which floor they should consider (lab floor, point-of-view floor or pit floor).
The task was repeated five times for each session, and the median of these trials gives the MBD
time estimation for a given subject and condition.
Time in 1PP (specific to ALT usage). Regarding the behavior of subjects while in the
ALT condition, we evaluate whether the session stage (REACH, WALK, WAIT and
OBSERVE) and multisensory congruence have an effect on the choice of perspective. To
summarize the choice of perspective in the ALT condition we compute the proportion of time
spent in 1PP (time in 1PP variable) during each stage of the ALT session (REACH, WALK,
WAIT and OBSERVE) for both VMT and ¬VMT conditions. We evaluate whether the session
stage and multisensory congruence have an effect on the choice of perspective. Moreover, to
8 / 19
better understand the influence of the time in 1PP to the sense of embodiment, we verify if this
variable is correlated with ownership, agency, self-location, threat, GSR and MBD.
Statistical analysis was conducted using R. For the response variables agency, ownership,
selflocation, threat, more bodies and turning virtual, the analysis was carried using mixed design
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with perspective (1PP vs. 3PP vs. ALT) as a within-subject
factor, and multisensory congruence (VMT vs. ¬VMT) and perspective order (1PP-3PP-ALT vs.
1PP-ALT-3PP vs. 3PP-1PP-ALT vs. 3PP-ALT-1PP vs. ALT-1PP-3PP vs. ALT-3PP-1PP) as
between-subject factors. We included perspective order as a factor to verify if the order in
which 1PP, 3PP and ALT have been presented could have had a consistent effect in the
questionnaire responses. For GSR, a similar analysis was carried, but excluding the perspective order
factor. For MBD, only the VMT group was considered, and repeated measures one-way
ANOVA was used with Perspective as the independent variable.
As ANOVA assumes that the residuals of the model fit belong to a normal distribution, we
tested this assumption with the Shapiro-Wilk test. If residuals are deemed not normal, we
transform the response with a Box-Cox transformation yλ, which does not alter the order of
the response values (monotonic transformation).
We conducted post-hoc analysis with pairwise t-tests and Holm-Bonferroni correction for
multiple comparisons if a significant main effect of perspective or the interaction between
perspective and multisensory congruence was found. For the latter we select a subset of possible
comparisons in order to limit the correction of the significance level. More specifically, we fix
the value of one of the variables, and test for the combinations of the other, and vice versa. This
yields a total of 9 comparisons. We do not perform any post-hoc for significant effects related
to perspective order, and simply report that a statistically significant effect has been found.
After reading the information sheet and completing the informed consent form, subjects were
asked to fill in a characterization form with questions about their background (other
experiments, experience with HMDs . . .) and physical characteristics (height, weight and age). Then
the experimenter played a video demonstrating the stages of a session (Video S2 Video) and
subjects were asked to wear the motion capture suit. Subjects in the VMT group had to
undergo the motion capture calibration at this point. A brief training on how the mental ball
drop (MBD) task should be performed followed, using the laboratory floor as a reference.
Finally, the experimenter helped the subject fit the HMD and the noise canceling headphones,
and tested the verbal communication through microphone. The GSR electrodes were placed in
the left hand and the wii remote in the right hand. The subject then went through an
experimental session. After the session was complete, the image on the HMD went black, and
instructions of the MBD task appeared. The task was repeated 5 times, and then the
experimenter removed the HMD and the headphones and asked the subject to fill in the
embodiment questionnaire (Table 1). The session procedure was repeated three times, once per
perspective condition. After the experiment subjects filled-in a post experiment questionnaire
about their perspective of preference for different stages of the session. The questionnaire also
asked whether they considered the floor of the laboratory or the floor of the virtual
environment during the MBD task.
A total of 48 subjects participated on the experiment (8 females, age between 19Ð30, mean
22.6). All subjects had normal or corrected to normal vision, normal physical and
psychological condition and did not suffer from acrophobia. For technical reasons and for optimal use of
9 / 19
the motion capture system, we limited recruitment to subjects with height from 165 to 190 cm,
and body mass index in the range from 18 to 27. Only 4 subjects reported having participated
in an experiment using VR in the past, while 17 reported having tried a HMD in the past, one
of which with weekly frequency.
This experiment was approved by the Commission cantonale d'eÂthique de la recherche sur
l'être humain in Vaud (CERVDÐprotocol 02/13), Switzerland. Subjects, recruited through
online registration system, had to read and sign a written informed consent form to participate
and were compensated with 20 CHF/hour for their participation.
A summary of the results and details of the post-hoc statistical results are presented in S1 and
S2 Tables. The data obtained with this experiment is available in S1 Data.
A summary of questionnaire results are presented in Figs 4 and 5.
Agency: agency response analysis yielded a significant effect of multisensory congruence,
perspective, as well as their interaction (F1,36 = 98 p < .001, F2,72 = 8.7 p < .001 and F2,72 = 3.37
p < .05 respectively). The post-hoc of the interaction indicates a significant effect of
multisensory congruence for all perspective conditions (VMT > ¬VMT). The sense of agency was
significantly lower for 3PP when multisensory congruence was not present (1PP¬VMT and
ALT¬VMT > 3PP¬VMT).
Ownership: a significant main effect of multisensory congruence, perspective and their
interaction was found (F1,36 = 4.5 p < .042, F2,72 = 22.8 p < .0001 and F2,72 = 5.2 p < .008
respectively). Post-hoc of the interaction indicates that the response score in 3PP¬VMT was
significantly lower than 1PP¬VMT, ALT¬VMT and 3PPVMT. The average ownership
response was always positive when multisensory congruence was present, with no significant
difference between perspective conditions in this case. It suggests that the lack of multisensory
congruence negatively affected body ownership only for 3PP.
Self-location: showed a significant effect of multisensory congruence (VMT > ¬VMT),
perspective and an interaction between perspective and presentation order (F1,36 = 4.3 p < .046,
Fig 4. Questionnaire results: Senses of agency and body ownership for the interaction between
perspective and multisensory congruence. Error bars represent the confidence interval of the mean (CI).
ª*º, ª**º and ª***º indicate p < .05, p < .01 and p < .001 respectively.
10 / 19
Fig 5. Questionnaire results: Self-location and threat responses for the main effect of perspective and
multisensory congruence. Error bars represent the confidence interval of the mean (CI). ª*º, ª**º and ª***º
indicate p < .05, p < .01 and p < .001 respectively.
F2,72 = 33.8 p < .001 and F10,72 = 3.1 p < .003 respectively). Post-hoc analysis of the perspective
factor shows a significant difference between all three conditions: 1PP > 3PP and ALT, and
ALT > 3PP. The interaction with perspective order suggests that the perspective presentation
order had influence over the reported self-location. Specifically, subjects starting the
experiment in 1PP or ALT gave lower self-location scores to 3PP, while subjects starting in 3PP gave
similar scores to all perspective conditions (presented in S2 Fig).
Threat: was significantly affected by the perspective factor (F2,72 = 21.4 p < .001). Post-hoc
shows a significant difference for all perspective comparisons (1PP > 3PP and ALT, and
ALT > 3PP). Although Fig 5 may suggest a consistent decrease of Threat score in the ¬VMT
condition, the statistical test failed to reject the equality (F1,36 = 3.4, p > .075).
More bodies: a significant effect of perspective and its interaction with multisensory
congruence was found (F2,72 = 4.3 p < .017 and F2,72 = 6.8 p < .003 respectively). Post hoc analysis
of the interactions has shown statistically significant difference with 3PPVMT and
1PP¬VMT > 1PPVMT.
Turning virtual: a significant effect of perspective was found (F2,72 = 16.4 p < .001). Post hoc
analysis shows that 1PP and ALT > 3PP.
Galvanic skin response
Eight subjects were excluded from the GSR analysis due to missing data or to failing
connectors for at least one of the 3 sessions of the experiment. The recordings in the moments that
precedes and follows the threat are presented in Fig 6. The threat event caused a significant
increase of the median for all 6 possible combinations of conditions as compared by a pairwise
Wilcoxon summed-rank test. When comparing the increase observed across the levels of
perspective and multisensory congruence, ANOVA shows a significant effect of perspective
(F2,56 = 4.21 p < .02). Post hoc shows a significantly stronger response in 1PP as compared to
3PP. The difference between ALT to 1PP and 3PP were not significant. The statistical test
failed to reject the equality of VMT and ¬VMT (F1,28 = .59 p > .44), however, it is worth noting
that GSR tends to present high inter-subject variability. GSR also presented a positive and
statistically significant correlation with the Threat question (r118 = .34 p < .001), but not with
Agency, Ownership or Self-location (r118 = .07 p > .45, r118 = .10 p > .26 and r118 = .17 p > .05
11 / 19
Fig 6. GSR variation time locked to the floor fall event (response in microsiemens). (left) The green and red shaded areas highlight the time interval
used to compute the median GSR preceding (5 to 0 seconds before) and following (1 to 6 seconds after) the floor fall event for each subject. Each line
color represents the GSR recording of one subject. The threat caused a statistically significant increase in the GSR response for all 6 combinations of
conditions. (right) The difference between the medians is used to indicate the per subject GSR change linked to the threat. A significant difference between
1PP and 3PP was observed.
respectively). This suggests that the GSR was effectively related to how threatened the subject
felt, validating the threat event. On the other hand, this measurement is usually expected to
correlate with the sense of body ownership [
], although other experiments have also
reported the lack of correlation [
Mental ball drop
We noticed a bias of overestimating MBD time in the 3PP¬VMT condition. We believe this
might result from limited visibility of the bottom of the pit due to the lack of body control in
this specific condition. Thus, only the time of subjects performing in the VMT group were
considered. One subject was excluded due to incomplete MBD data. The ANOVA test failed
to reject the similarity of MBD time across perspective levels (F2,44 = 2.1 p > .14), making it
unlikely that subjects performed the task differently in 1PP, 3PP and ALT conditions.
Time in 1PP (specific to ALT usage)
Subjects performed 2 to 30 perspective switches during the ALT session, with mean±SD of
11 ± 5.6. Two subjects performed less perspective changes than instructed by the experimenter.
The mean±SD proportion of time spent in 1PP was.68 ± .13. That is, nearly one third of the
time in the ALT condition was spent in 3PP. Subjects tended to make use of perspective
changes during the REACH stage, while favoring 1PP for the following stages. The breakdown
of the proportion of time spent in 1PP during each stage is shown in Fig 7. The proportion of
time in 1PP presents a significant positive correlation with the reported sense of self-location
(r46 = .29 p < .05) and threat (r46 = .33 p < .022), but do not correlate with agency (r46 = −.04
p > .81) and ownership (r46 = .12 p > .4). The latter suggests that the possibility of alternating
perspective had no consistent influence to the sense of ownership of the virtual body.
12 / 19
Fig 7. Breakdown of the proportion of time spent in 1PP for each stage of the ALT session for VMT and ¬VMT. Subjects tended to make a
balanced use of perspectives in the REACH stage, while favoring 1PP for the following stages. Notably, overall perspective choice has shifted to 1PP once
the reaching task was complete. 1PP seems to be preferred by the VMT group when they had to complete the walking task. This was not the case for the
¬VMT group, who had no practical incentive to change perspective at this stage of the session as the task is completed regardless of their actions. The
WALK stage was the only one to present a statistically significant difference between the groups, as analyzed with pairwise t-tests (t35 = 2.88, p < .01).
In our study we manipulated visual perspective (1PP, 3PP and ALT) and multisensory
congruence (VMT and ¬VMT). Subjects could successfully perform all stages of all the sessions. We
assessed the sense of embodiment with a questionnaire and the change in galvanic skin
response due to a threat. Our threat was effective, and a clear and significant increase in GSR
could be observed following the threatening event for all conditions. The results revealed
several interesting findings. First, sense of body ownership measured in 3PP was similar to 1PP,
but only when multisensory congruence was used, suggesting that visuo-motor-tactile
congruence can mitigate the bodily discontinuities inherent to a 3PP view point in an ecologically
valid VR experience scenario. Second, despite the lack of direct interaction with the virtual
body in the ¬VMT group, subjects reported sense of agency and ownership of the body when
in 1PP or ALT condition; this indicates that the match of having an intent and seeing the
virtual body performing it may be sufficient to feel agency and body ownership in 1PP and ALT.
Third, the ALT condition had similar response to 1PP, regardless of the multisensory
congruence condition, indicating that it could be used in VR experiences as an alternative to having a
constant point of view.
Sense of embodiment in 3PP
The experimental manipulation of multisensory congruence had the expected effect on the
3PP condition. The 3PP:VMT group reported a significantly stronger sense of agency, body
ownership and self-location than the 3PP:¬VMT group.
13 / 19
On the one hand, the sense of agency and small alterations to self-location of a body seen in
3PP through multisensory congruence are well supported by literature. Agency in humans
represents an adaptive causal link, that seems to be constantly modelled by action and outcome
contingencies developed by repetition [
]. One can feel agency over outcomes that are
mediated by a device, such as a sound caused by pressing a button [
]. Thus, it is to be expected
that agency over a controlled virtual body will be sustained independently of perspective, as
reflected in our agency results (but see [
]). Moreover, alterations to the sense of self-location
are also consistently reported [
2, 15, 19, 25, 29, 43
]. A currently supported hypothesis is that
changes in self-location are produced by alterations of the peripersonal space (volume of space
within body reach, which is associated to multisensory neurons reacting to visual/auditory and
tactile stimulation [
]), driven by the congruent tactile and/or motor stimulation, despite
the incongruent point of view (3PP) [
]. Recent experimental protocols have found support to
this hypothesis [
]. In Noel et al.  the authors use an audio-tactile task to identify the
point in space where a looming sound speeds up tactile processing. They replicate the protocol
described in [
], showing that the peripersonal space drifts by a small amount towards the
virtual body seen from a 3PP. Furthermore, novel results have shown that such modulation of
self location and peripersonal space can be induced even when participants are unaware of the
]. Overall, our self-location results indicate a positive response in 3PP, although
significantly lower than in 1PP. Moreover, the results of the mental imagery task (MBD)
suggests that subjects did not differentiate between 1PP and 3PP when estimating the time that an
imaginary ball would take to hit the ground, regardless of the fact that the point of view was
located 10 meters farther from the ground when in 1PP.
On the other hand, the sense of ownership of a virtual body in 3PP is a more subtle aspect
of embodiment that requires further attention. First, our results are inline with previous
experiments using visuo-tactile [
] or visuo-motor [
] congruence showing that ownership
of a virtual body is possible in 3PP. They however contrast with other experiments where
visuo-tactile synchrony and perspective were manipulated; Slater et al. [
] and Petkova et al.
] show evidence of a strong influence of 1PP to the sense of ownership of a virtual body,
more significant than the influence of visuo-tactile synchrony. Moreover, additional
experiments by Maselli and Slater [
] report subjects' disagreement when asked about their
experience of ownership of a body seen from 3PP. Here, our statistical analysis failed to reject
the equivalency of body ownership between 3PP and 1PP in the VMT group in questionnaire
responses. This contrasts with the clear evidence in the ¬VMT group that 1PP is a decisive
factor for embodiment (as in [
16, 17, 28, 29, 47
]). Together, our questionnaire results suggest that
most of the influence on the sense of body ownership were mitigated by the multisensory
congruence in place. This might be explained by the new dimensions to the consistency of
multisensory cues that our study provides; allowing motor control of the whole virtual body with a
natural mapping and including global aspects such as walking in the virtual environment. In
addition, our study adds an effective bodily involvement through the threat of falling, which is
supported by a correlation between GSR and threat questionnaire scores. Interestingly, we do
not find a correlation between GSR and body ownership score (which would be in line with
), yet we find a weaker response to threatÐboth GSR and questionnaireÐin 3PP than in
1PP or ALT. We interpret this as an evidence that perspective had an impact on the subjective
feeling of body ownership.
1PP and multisensory congruence
In addition to the expected results on 3PP, it is worth noticing that, in 1PP, the effect of
multisensory congruence was verified for agency and self-location, but not for body ownership,
14 / 19
thus suggesting a strong effect of perspective to the sense of body ownership only when no
other congruent sensorial clues were present. This could be an appealing advantage for 1PP, as
it suggests that observing the virtual body from a natural point of view while only controlling
camera orientation is sufficient for the subject to self-identify with the avatar body,
independently of proprioceptive and tactile congruence. Moreover, even though the responses to the
agency questions were significantly inferior for ¬VMT, its absolute value are still positive,
unveiling a degree of agreement with the sense of agency question statements. It could be
hypothesized that subjects associated the control of the camera with the control of the head of
the avatar, thus leading to a feeling of partially controlling the body.
These results find support on the recent work of Kokkinara et al. [
]. In their study, seated
subjects developed the feeling of agency and ownership of a walking virtual body. But only
when the externally controlled virtual body was experienced from a 1PP. The authors make
the argument that, in line with the more subjective account of agency proposed by Synofzik
et al. [
], the intention to walk may have been produced during observation, driving the
selfattributing that they report. With the exception that the tasks in our experiment had higher
complexity, our ¬VMT condition closely replicates their experimental paradigm, with
compatible agency and body ownership results, and thus supporting their view.
The ability to choose the point of view resulted in embodiment responses that were similar to
1PP, regardless of the multisensory congruence condition. This is most probably related to the
larger amount of time spent on average in 1PP than in 3PP (Fig 7). Still, our results suggest
that the relation with a virtual body experienced from 1PP can be sustained despite the
periodic alternation to a 3PP point of view. Therefore, we observe that the ALT condition is a
viable alternative for VR applications to maximize the sense of embodiment, without
compromising the contextual information that 3PP can provide nor the more consistent
bound to the virtual body that 1PP seems able to promote. We also highlight that more
subjects preferred the ALT condition, and that they had the perception of performing faster in
that condition, even though we found no clear effect of perspective in our performance
measure (Table 2, a short analysis of the time to reach targets is available in S3 Fig). Moreover, the
post experiment comparative questionnaire shows that subjects generally perceive the 3PP as
safer than 1PP (Table 2). It is worth noting that none of the subjects reported feeling sick due
to the perspective switch, although no formal testing has been conducted in this matter.
In this paper we presented an experiment using Virtual Reality to explore the influence of
perspective taking and multisensory congruence on the embodiment of a virtual body. We show
that the multimodal correlation with the whole body movement and its physical contacts with
the environment plays a prominent role on the sense of body ownership of a virtual body
located in the extra-personal space (3PP), but is less influent when the point of view coincides
with the body (1PP). Thus, in the context of the scientific debates investigating the influence of
perspective taking, motor and sensory correlation over the sense of body ownership, our result
stands out by supporting the view that a 3PP is compatible with body ownership when
sensorimotor contingencies are present.
Moreover, we proposed and explored how a new method alternating 1PP and 3PP could
benefit from the particular advantages of each viewpoint. Subjective evaluations of
embodiment for this condition were very similar to those of 1PP alone, suggesting that the
interruption of the point of view during the simulation is not significantly detrimental to the sense of
body ownership of a virtual body. A potential application of alternated perspective could be in
post traumatic stress disorder or phobia treatment, in which one can develop a strong sense of
embodiment of the virtual body in 1PP, and then switch to 3PP when the body is exposed to a
threat. This would allow the exposure to happen in a more reassuring manner, while still
preserving a stronger bound to the virtual body, thus making the experience of self exposure
flexible and the treatment more gradual.
In summary, our results contribute to the understanding of the interplay of the multiple
components supporting embodiment and show that several factors (visuo-motor congruence,
visuo-tactile congruence or perspective) can influence body ownership and embodiment
depending on the tasks to perform and on the stimuli provided. Understanding the cognitive
mechanisms of embodiment is a fundamental challenge for the development of VR interaction
that needs to be investigated further. This study shows how an original idea for the design of
interaction in VR can originate from and be supported by cognitive science knowledge,
potentially leading to innovative interaction and navigation paradigms benefiting to several fields of
S1 Video. Overview of the experimental setup and conditions.
S2 Video. Session protocol. Video used to instruct the subject about the stages of a session.
S1 Fig. Example of the GSR signal of a complete session.
S2 Fig. Reported sense of self-location at different levels of perspective and perspective
S3 Fig. Performance comparison of the reaching task (VMT group only).
S1 Table. Summary of results: Mean and confidence interval per experimental condition.
16 / 19
S2 Table. Summary of statistical tests results and their respective effect size estimations.
S1 Data. Data sets obtained with this experiment.
This work has been supported by SNFS project ªImmersive Embodied Interactions in Virtual
Environmentsº NÊ 200021_140910. Roy Salomon was supported by an Israeli Science
foundation grant (ISF 1169/17).
Conceptualization: Henrique Galvan Debarba, Sidney Bovet, Bruno Herbelin, Ronan Boulic.
Formal analysis: Henrique Galvan Debarba, Roy Salomon.
Funding acquisition: Olaf Blanke, Bruno Herbelin, Ronan Boulic.
Investigation: Henrique Galvan Debarba, Sidney Bovet.
Methodology: Henrique Galvan Debarba, Sidney Bovet.
Project administration: Bruno Herbelin, Ronan Boulic.
Resources: Henrique Galvan Debarba, Sidney Bovet.
Software: Henrique Galvan Debarba, Sidney Bovet.
Supervision: Henrique Galvan Debarba, Roy Salomon, Bruno Herbelin, Ronan Boulic.
Validation: Roy Salomon.
Writing ± original draft: Henrique Galvan Debarba.
Writing ± review & editing: Henrique Galvan Debarba, Sidney Bovet, Roy Salomon, Olaf
Blanke, Bruno Herbelin, Ronan Boulic.
17 / 19
18 / 19
1. Legrand D. The bodily self: The sensori-motor roots of pre-reflective self-consciousness . Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences . 2006 ; 5 ( 1 ): 89 ± 118 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-005-9015-6
2. Blanke O . Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness . Nature Reviews Neuroscience . 2012 ; 13 ( 8 ): 556 ± 571 . PMID: 22805909
3. Blanke O , Slater M , Serino A. Behavioral, neural, and computational principles of bodily self-consciousness . Neuron . 2015 ; 88 ( 1 ): 145 ± 166 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron. 2015 . 09 .029 PMID: 26447578
4. Faivre N , Salomon R , Blanke O . Visual consciousness and bodily self-consciousness. Current opinion in neurology . 2015 ; 28 ( 1 ): 23 ± 28 . https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000160 PMID: 25502051
5. Vogeley K , Fink GR . Neural correlates of the first-person-perspective. Trends in cognitive sciences . 2003 ; 7 ( 1 ): 38 ± 42 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364- 6613 ( 02 ) 00003 - 7 PMID: 12517357
6. Kilteni K , Groten R , Slater M. The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality . Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments . 2012 ; 21 ( 4 ): 373 ± 387 . https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_ 00124
7. Longo MR , SchuÈuÈr F , Kammers MP , Tsakiris M , Haggard P . What is embodiment? A psychometric approach . Cognition . 2008 ; 107 ( 3 ): 978 ± 998 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition. 2007 . 12 .004 PMID: 18262508
8. Botvinick M , Cohen J , et al. Rubber hands `feel' touch that eyes see . Nature . 1998 ; 391 ( 6669 ). https:// doi.org/10.1038/35784 PMID: 9486643
9. Tsakiris M , Haggard P. The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance . 2005 ; 31 ( 1 ): 80 . PMID: 15709864
10. Slater M , Perez-Marcos D , Ehrsson HH , Sanchez-Vives MV . Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion . Frontiers in human neuroscience . 2008 ; 2 . https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.006. 2008 PMID: 18958207
11. Sanchez-Vives MV , Spanlang B , Frisoli A , Bergamasco M , Slater M. Virtual hand illusion induced by visuomotor correlations . PloS one . 2010 ; 5 ( 4 ):e10381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0010381 PMID: 20454463
12. Yuan Y , Steed A . Is the rubber hand illusion induced by immersive virtual reality? In: Virtual Reality Conference (VR) , 2010 IEEE. IEEE; 2010 . p. 95 ± 102 .
13. Walsh LD , Moseley GL , Taylor JL , Gandevia SC . Proprioceptive signals contribute to the sense of body ownership . The Journal of physiology . 2011 ; 589 ( 12 ): 3009 ± 3021 . https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol. 2011 . 204941 PMID: 21521765
14. Kalckert A , Ehrsson HH . Moving a Rubber Hand that Feels Like Your Own: A Dissociation of Ownership and Agency . Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2012 ; 6 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum. 2012 .00040 PMID: 22435056
15. Lenggenhager B , Tadi T , Metzinger T , Blanke O . Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness . Science . 2007 ; 317 ( 5841 ): 1096 ± 1099 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1143439 PMID: 17717189
16. Slater M , Spanlang B , Sanchez-Vives MV , Blanke O. First Person Experience of Body Transfer in Virtual Reality . PLoS ONE . 2010 ; 5 ( 5 ). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010564
17. Petkova VI , Khoshnevis M , Ehrsson HH . The perspective matters! Multisensory integration in egocentric reference frames determines full-body ownership . Frontiers in psychology. 2011 ; 2 . https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2011 .00035 PMID: 21687436
18. Petkova VI , Ehrsson HH . If I were you: perceptual illusion of body swapping . PloS one . 2008 ; 3 ( 12 ): e3832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0003832 PMID: 19050755
19. Lenggenhager B , Mouthon M , Blanke O . Spatial aspects of bodily self-consciousness. Consciousness and cognition . 2009 ; 18 ( 1 ): 110 ± 117 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog. 2008 . 11 .003 PMID: 19109039
20. Tsakiris M , Prabhu G , Haggard P. Having a body versus moving your body: How agency structures body-ownership . Consciousness and Cognition . 2006 ; 15 ( 2 ): 423 ± 432 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. concog. 2005 . 09 .004. PMID: 16343947
21. Salomon R , Fernandez N , Van Elk M , Vachicouras N , Sabatier F , Tychinskaya A , et al. Changing motor perception by sensorimotor conflicts and body ownership . Scientific reports . 2016 ; 6 . https://doi.org/10. 1038/srep25847
22. Moseley GL , Gallace A , Iannetti GD . Spatially defined modulation of skin temperature and hand ownership of both hands in patients with unilateral complex regional pain syndrome . Brain . 2012 ; 135 ( 12 ): 3676 ± 3686 . https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aws297 PMID: 23250885
23. Salomon R , Lim M , Pfeiffer C , Gassert R , Blanke O . Full body illusion is associated with widespread skin temperature reduction . Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience . 2013 ; 7 . https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnbeh. 2013 .00065 PMID: 23898244
24. Armel KC , Ramachandran VS . Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response . Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences . 2003 ; 270 ( 1523 ): 1499 ± 1506 . https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb. 2003 .2364
25. PomeÂs A , Slater M. Drift and ownership toward a distant virtual body . Frontiers in human neuroscience . 2013 ; 7 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum. 2013 .00908 PMID: 24399960
26. Debarba HG , Molla E , Herbelin B , Boulic R . Characterizing embodied interaction in First and Third Person Perspective viewpoints . In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI) ; 2015 . p. 67 ± 72 .
27. Gorisse G , Christmann O , Amato EA , Richir S . First-and Third-Person Perspectives in immersive Virtual environments: Presence and Performance analysis of embodied Users . Frontiers in Robotics and AI . 2017 ; 4 . https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt. 2017 .00033
28. Maselli A , Slater M. The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion . Frontiers in human neuroscience . 2013 ; 7 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum. 2013 .00083 PMID: 23519597
29. Maselli A , Slater M. Sliding perspectives: dissociating ownership from self-location during full body illusions in virtual reality . Frontiers in human neuroscience . 2014 ; 8 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum. 2014 . 00693 PMID: 25309383
30. Boulic R , Maupu D , Thalmann D . On scaling strategies for the full-body postural control of virtual mannequins . Interacting With Computers . 2009 ; 21 : 11 ± 25 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom. 2008 . 10 .002
31. Salamin P , Tadi T , Blanke O , Vexo F , Thalmann D. Quantifying Effects of Exposure to the Third and First-Person Perspectives in Virtual-Reality-Based Training . Learning Technologies, IEEE Transactions on. 2010 ; 3 ( 3 ): 272 ± 276 . https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT. 2010 .13
32. Covaci A , Olivier AH , Multon F. Third Person View and Guidance for More Natural Motor Behaviour in Immersive Basketball Playing . In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. VRST'14 . New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2014 . p. 55 ± 64 .
33. Renard Y , Lotte F , Gibert G , Congedo M , Maby E , Delannoy V , et al. Openvibe: An open-source software platform to design, test, and use brain±computer interfaces in real and virtual environments . Presence . 2010 ; 19 ( 1 ): 35 ± 53 . https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.19.1. 35
34. Taylor RM II , Hudson TC , Seeger A , Weber H , Juliano J , Helser AT . VRPN: A Device-independent, Network-transparent VR Peripheral System . In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. VRST'01 . New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2001 . p. 55 ± 61 .
35. Molla E , Boulic R . Singularity Free Parametrization of Human Limbs . In: Proceedings of Motion on Games. MIG'13 . New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2013 . p. 187 ± 196 .
36. Meehan M , Insko B , Whitton M , Brooks FP Jr. Physiological Measures of Presence in Stressful Virtual Environments . ACM Trans Graph . 2002 ; 21 ( 3 ): 645 ± 652 . https://doi.org/10.1145/566654.566630
37. LaViola JJ Jr. A Discussion of Cybersickness in Virtual Environments . SIGCHI Bull . 2000 ; 32 ( 1 ): 47 ± 56 . https://doi.org/10.1145/333329.333344
38. Bowman DA , Koller D , Hodges LF . Travel in immersive virtual environments: an evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques . In: Proceedings of IEEE 1997 Annual International Symposium on Virtual Reality; 1997 . p. 45 ± 52 , 215 .
39. Caspar EA , Cleeremans A , Haggard P. The relationship between human agency and embodiment . Consciousness and cognition . 2015 ; 33 : 226 ± 236 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog. 2015 . 01 .007 PMID: 25655206
40. Kokkinara E , Slater M. Measuring the effects through time of the influence of visuomotor and visuotactile synchronous stimulation on a virtual body ownership illusion . Perception . 2014 ; 43 ( 1 ): 43 ± 58 . https:// doi.org/10.1068/p7545 PMID: 24689131
41. Moore JW , Lagnado D , Deal DC , Haggard P . Feelings of control: contingency determines experience of action . Cognition . 2009 ; 110 ( 2 ): 279 ± 283 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition. 2008 . 11 .006 PMID: 19110240
42. Haggard P , Clark S , Kalogeras J. Voluntary action and conscious awareness . Nature neuroscience . 2002 ; 5 ( 4 ): 382 ± 385 . https://doi.org/10.1038/nn827 PMID: 11896397
43. Noel JP , Pfeiffer C , Blanke O , Serino A . Peripersonal space as the space of the bodily self . Cognition . 2015 ; 144 : 49 ± 57 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition. 2015 . 07 .012 PMID: 26231086
44. Fogassi L , Gallese V , Fadiga L , Luppino G , Matelli M , Rizzolatti G . Coding of peripersonal space in inferior premotor cortex (area F4) . Journal of Neurophysiology . 1996 ; 76 ( 1 ): 141 ± 157 . PMID: 8836215
45. Canzoneri E , Magosso E , Serino A . Dynamic Sounds Capture the Boundaries of Peripersonal Space Representation in Humans . PLoS ONE . 2012 ; 7 ( 9 ). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0044306 PMID: 23028516
46. Salomon R , Noel JP , Lukowska M , Faivre N , Metzinger T , Serino A , et al. Unconscious integration of multisensory bodily inputs in the peripersonal space shapes bodily self-consciousness . Cognition . 2017 ; 166 : 174 ± 186 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition. 2017 . 05 .028 PMID: 28577447
47. Falconer CJ , Slater M , Rovira A , King JA , Gilbert P , Antley A , et al. Embodying compassion: a virtual reality paradigm for overcoming excessive self-criticism . PloS one . 2014 ; 9 ( 11 ):e111933. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0111933 PMID: 25389766
48. Kokkinara E , Kilteni K , Blom KJ , Slater M. First Person Perspective of Seated Participants Over a Walking Virtual Body Leads to Illusory Agency Over the Walking . Scientific Reports . 2016 ; 6 ( 28879 ). https:// doi.org/10.1038/srep28879 PMID: 27364767
49. Synofzik M , Vosgerau G , Newen A . Beyond the comparator model: a multifactorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and cognition . 2008 ; 17 ( 1 ): 219 ± 239 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog. 2007 . 03 . 010 PMID: 17482480