Renzo Lanfranco
@renzolanfranco.bsky.social
Principal Researcher in Cognitive Neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet. Interested in consciousness, visual & body perception, self, face recognition, metacognition & altered states of consciousness | https://ki.se/en/people/renzo-lanfranco
5/7 We also found a bias in hand ownership against the rubber hand that was touched by a robotic arm when its approaching movements were occluded, suggesting that even though vision and touch can be integrated as long as visually-driven predictions occur, there is still a perceptual bias.
November 18, 2025 at 1:21 PM
5/7 We also found a bias in hand ownership against the rubber hand that was touched by a robotic arm when its approaching movements were occluded, suggesting that even though vision and touch can be integrated as long as visually-driven predictions occur, there is still a perceptual bias.
4/7 Interestingly, we found that visual occlusion did not affect body ownership sensitivity, which suggests that as long as touch can be visually predicted, the feeling of ownership may arise in the rubber hand illusion.
November 18, 2025 at 1:21 PM
4/7 Interestingly, we found that visual occlusion did not affect body ownership sensitivity, which suggests that as long as touch can be visually predicted, the feeling of ownership may arise in the rubber hand illusion.
2/7 Here, we induced the rubber hand illusion with two rubber hands, simultaneously, and varied the degrees of stimulation asynchrony between the real hand and the rubber hands, and visual feedback by occluding the approaching movements of the robotic arms or the touch itself on the real hand.
November 18, 2025 at 1:21 PM
2/7 Here, we induced the rubber hand illusion with two rubber hands, simultaneously, and varied the degrees of stimulation asynchrony between the real hand and the rubber hands, and visual feedback by occluding the approaching movements of the robotic arms or the touch itself on the real hand.
If you're attending ICON in Porto this week, come to our symposium: "Recent Developments in Bodily Self-awareness Research." We'll talk about the computational and neural mechanisms of the sense of body ownership and body representation | 📆 Friday 19th at ⏰️ 13:30.
September 18, 2025 at 11:33 AM
If you're attending ICON in Porto this week, come to our symposium: "Recent Developments in Bodily Self-awareness Research." We'll talk about the computational and neural mechanisms of the sense of body ownership and body representation | 📆 Friday 19th at ⏰️ 13:30.
13/14 We found that the rate of evidence accumulation for body ownership perception and for conscious awareness did not vary across visuotactile asynchronies, suggesting again that body ownership information is not processed in the absence of awareness.
January 6, 2025 at 3:29 PM
13/14 We found that the rate of evidence accumulation for body ownership perception and for conscious awareness did not vary across visuotactile asynchronies, suggesting again that body ownership information is not processed in the absence of awareness.
10/14 Perception relies on evidence accumulation. To test whether the relationship between body ownership and awareness holds as evidence is accumulated, we varied the number of touches applied (3, 6, 9). We found conscious access remains constant across visuotact. asynchronies.
January 6, 2025 at 3:29 PM
10/14 Perception relies on evidence accumulation. To test whether the relationship between body ownership and awareness holds as evidence is accumulated, we varied the number of touches applied (3, 6, 9). We found conscious access remains constant across visuotact. asynchronies.
9/14 To ensure that participants focused on their feeling of ownership rather than on visuotactile synchronicity, we rotated the rubber hands by 90 degrees (which abolishes the RHI), and found chance sensitivity, suggesting that participants focused on ownership.
January 6, 2025 at 3:29 PM
9/14 To ensure that participants focused on their feeling of ownership rather than on visuotactile synchronicity, we rotated the rubber hands by 90 degrees (which abolishes the RHI), and found chance sensitivity, suggesting that participants focused on ownership.
7/14 Using signal detection analysis, we found that the sensitivity of body ownership to visuotactile asynchrony was above chance from 31 ms of asynchrony, but not at 18 ms. We found equivalent results for the sensitivity of perceptual awareness to body ownership discrimination.
January 6, 2025 at 3:29 PM
7/14 Using signal detection analysis, we found that the sensitivity of body ownership to visuotactile asynchrony was above chance from 31 ms of asynchrony, but not at 18 ms. We found equivalent results for the sensitivity of perceptual awareness to body ownership discrimination.
5/14 We used a novel and robust psychophysical paradigm that employs robot arms to induce the RHI: one arm taps the participant’s hand, while the other two tap two rubber hands. One rubber hand is stroked in sync with the real hand, and the other is stroked with a varying delay.
January 6, 2025 at 3:29 PM
5/14 We used a novel and robust psychophysical paradigm that employs robot arms to induce the RHI: one arm taps the participant’s hand, while the other two tap two rubber hands. One rubber hand is stroked in sync with the real hand, and the other is stroked with a varying delay.
13/14 We found that the rate of evidence accumulation for body ownership perception and for conscious awareness did not vary across visuotactile asynchronies, suggesting again that body ownership information is not processed in the absence of awareness.
January 6, 2025 at 3:21 PM
13/14 We found that the rate of evidence accumulation for body ownership perception and for conscious awareness did not vary across visuotactile asynchronies, suggesting again that body ownership information is not processed in the absence of awareness.
10/14 Perception relies on evidence accumulation. To test whether the relationship between body ownership and awareness holds as evidence is accumulated, we varied the number of touches applied (3, 6, 9). We found conscious access remains constant across visuotact. asynchronies.
January 6, 2025 at 3:21 PM
10/14 Perception relies on evidence accumulation. To test whether the relationship between body ownership and awareness holds as evidence is accumulated, we varied the number of touches applied (3, 6, 9). We found conscious access remains constant across visuotact. asynchronies.
9/14 To ensure that participants focused on their feeling of ownership rather than on visuotactile synchronicity, we rotated the rubber hands by 90 degrees (which abolishes the RHI), and found chance sensitivity, suggesting that participants focused on ownership.
January 6, 2025 at 3:21 PM
9/14 To ensure that participants focused on their feeling of ownership rather than on visuotactile synchronicity, we rotated the rubber hands by 90 degrees (which abolishes the RHI), and found chance sensitivity, suggesting that participants focused on ownership.
7/14 Using signal detection analysis, we found that the sensitivity of body ownership to visuotactile asynchrony was above chance from 31 ms of asynchrony, but not at 18 ms. We found equivalent results for the sensitivity of perceptual awareness to body ownership discrimination.
January 6, 2025 at 3:21 PM
7/14 Using signal detection analysis, we found that the sensitivity of body ownership to visuotactile asynchrony was above chance from 31 ms of asynchrony, but not at 18 ms. We found equivalent results for the sensitivity of perceptual awareness to body ownership discrimination.
5/14 We used a novel and robust psychophysical paradigm that employs robot arms to induce the RHI: one arm taps the participant’s hand, while the other two tap two rubber hands. One rubber hand is stroked in sync with the real hand, and the other is stroked with a varying delay.
January 6, 2025 at 3:21 PM
5/14 We used a novel and robust psychophysical paradigm that employs robot arms to induce the RHI: one arm taps the participant’s hand, while the other two tap two rubber hands. One rubber hand is stroked in sync with the real hand, and the other is stroked with a varying delay.
11/12 Finally, our sixth study focused on face-specific neural processing by measuring the N170 component. We found further evidence that, with around 4.4 ms of exposure, the brain could recognise that the stimulus was a face.
October 10, 2024 at 12:57 PM
11/12 Finally, our sixth study focused on face-specific neural processing by measuring the N170 component. We found further evidence that, with around 4.4 ms of exposure, the brain could recognise that the stimulus was a face.
10/12 Now for the big question: what about awareness? We measured VAN and LP, two EEG markers of awareness, and found that the minimal exposure duration required for them to be sensitive to subjective experience was 4.4 ms. This suggests no meaningful info is extracted unconsciously.
October 10, 2024 at 12:56 PM
10/12 Now for the big question: what about awareness? We measured VAN and LP, two EEG markers of awareness, and found that the minimal exposure duration required for them to be sensitive to subjective experience was 4.4 ms. This suggests no meaningful info is extracted unconsciously.
9/12 However, we also used machine learning (MVPA) to reveal the minimal exposure duration required for emotion processing, to complement our ERP findings, and found that emotion processing arises from 4.4 ms of exposure. So, emotion processing arises with configural processing!
October 10, 2024 at 12:55 PM
9/12 However, we also used machine learning (MVPA) to reveal the minimal exposure duration required for emotion processing, to complement our ERP findings, and found that emotion processing arises from 4.4 ms of exposure. So, emotion processing arises with configural processing!
8/12 In our fifth study, we measured the ERP markers EPN and LPP, which are sensitive to emotional information. These markers only responded to emotional information from 6.2 ms of exposure—longer than the 4.4 ms required for configural processing.
October 10, 2024 at 12:54 PM
8/12 In our fifth study, we measured the ERP markers EPN and LPP, which are sensitive to emotional information. These markers only responded to emotional information from 6.2 ms of exposure—longer than the 4.4 ms required for configural processing.
6/12 Our design involved discriminating intact vs. scrambled faces. What if we assess detection without using scrambles? In 2 other studies, we used shorter exposures (0.25 to 1.25 ms) and found a similar detection pattern, though these exposures were too brief for identification.
October 10, 2024 at 12:54 PM
6/12 Our design involved discriminating intact vs. scrambled faces. What if we assess detection without using scrambles? In 2 other studies, we used shorter exposures (0.25 to 1.25 ms) and found a similar detection pattern, though these exposures were too brief for identification.
4/12 In our first 2 studies, we presented face images to viewers from 0.6 - 6.2 ms of exposure, and assessed their ability to detect the face and identify its expression. Upright faces enjoyed a detection advantage to inverted faces from 4.4 ms, an index of configural processing.
October 10, 2024 at 12:53 PM
4/12 In our first 2 studies, we presented face images to viewers from 0.6 - 6.2 ms of exposure, and assessed their ability to detect the face and identify its expression. Upright faces enjoyed a detection advantage to inverted faces from 4.4 ms, an index of configural processing.