用中文总结The current experiments followed the general
design of a previous study (Eck et al., 2022).
Participants controlled a 2D virtual hand through
movements ofa computer mouse or on a touchpad.
Based on ﬁndings suggesting that humanoid.appearance ofexternal objects is positively related
to body ownership (Lin & J¨org, 2016; Petkova &
Ehrsson, 2008; Tsakiris et al., 2010), we choose to
present a digital image of a realistic hand as the
mouse cursor instead of an arbitrary virtual object
(Bergstr¨om et al., 2019; Ma & Hommel, 2015a,
2015b). Each trial comprised an embodiment
phase and a disembodiment phase. We use the
terms “embodiment phase” and “disembodiment
phase” to indicate the intended role ofboth phases
for the experiment: The procedure during the
embodiment phase aims at evoking feelings of
embodiment for the virtual object, whereas the
disembodiment phase allows for testing how
disembodiment ofthe previously embodied virtual
object unfolds. Because the current experiments
aimed at replicating and extending earlier work
from our lab (Eck et al., 2022; Pﬁster et al., 2021),
for reasons of clarity and better comparability
between studies, the terminology that was used in
the current study for phases and conditions was
mostly consistent with labels used in the preceding
studies. During the embodiment phase participants
had to continuously move the virtual hand back-
and-forth from a target on the left side ofthe screen
to a target on the right side of the screen, and vice
versa. During the disembodiment phase partici-
pants either continued moving back-and-forth like
before (active condition) or they stopped moving
and passively watched the static virtual hand for
the rest of the trial (no-movement condition). We
measured embodiment and disembodiment of the
virtual hand by asking participants several times in
each phase to rate to which extent they experienced
the virtual hand on the screen as a part of
their body.
We found in the previous study that embodi-
ment ratings continuously increased during the
embodiment phase in both conditions (Eck et al.,
2022). In the disembodiment phase of the active
condition, ratings remained continuously high
while ratings instantly dropped to preembodiment
level as soon as participants stopped moving in the
no-movement condition. The gradual increase of
ratings during the embodiment phase was in line
with our hypothesis and replicated previous ob-
servations of embodiment for 2D virtual objects
that can be controlled through active movements
(Bergstr¨om et al., 2019; Liesner et al., 2020; Ma &
Hommel, 2015a, 2015b). However, the seemingly instant disembodiment of the virtual hand after
stopping to move was unexpected. Based on
previous work with physical rubber hands, we had
predicted gradual disembodiment when the em-
bodied virtual hand would no longer be updated
through correlated visuo-motor signals (Abdulkarim
et al., 2021; Pﬁster et al., 2021).
One possibility to account for the diverging
ﬁndings for disembodiment in physical and virtual
interactions is to assume that human agents might
have learned (and therefore are prepared) to update
body representations swiftly when interacting with
computer technology (Eck et al., 2022). This could
lead to instant disembodiment whenever an em-
bodied virtual entity is no longer relevant for the
task at hand. Alternatively, disembodiment of
embodied virtual entities might still occur in a
gradual fashion but on a faster timescale as
compared to physical entities. Our previous study
might not have been able to detect a gradual pattern
for the simple technical reason that the interval
between stopping to move and the ﬁrst rating ofthe
disembodiment phase was too long (20 seconds).
Another methodological problem that might be
responsible for the unexpected ﬁnding concerns
our rating scale. In the previous study, participants
could indicate their sense of embodiment for the
virtual hand on a scale consisting of nine cate-
gories that were represented by numbers ranging
from 1 to 9. Semantic anchors were provided for
the rating scale as follows: A rating of 1 indicated
no embodiment as reﬂected in the corresponding
semantic anchor: “I feel no relation between the
hand on the screen and my body.” Moderate sense
ofembodiment was suggested by another semantic
anchor at a rating of 3: “I could imagine the hand
on the screen as an extension ofmy body.” A rating
of 7 represented the statement: “I have the feeling
that the hand on the screen is a part of my body,”
suggesting solid embodiment. Finally, rating
9 indicated particularly strong embodiment as was
implied by the relevant semantic anchor: “I have
the feeling that the hand on the screen is my own
hand.” These semantic anchors might have pos-
sibly biased the responses of the participants.
In the current study, we ruled out the meth-
odological concerns of the previous study and
tested the assumption that anticipating task de-
mands ofan upcoming task might speed up or slow
down the disembodiment of virtual objects. In Experiment 1 the interrating intervals for the
disembodiment phase were 10 seconds, that is, half
as long as in the previous study. Shortening the
interrating intervals allowed us to test whether
disembodiment would already be completed
within an even shorter timeframe, as would be
predicted by instant disembodiment, or whether
ratings would decrease more gradually during this
time. Based on the previous study we expected
instant disembodiment of the virtual hand shortly
after participants would stop moving. In Experi-
ment 2, we aimed at validating the previous results
by using a rating scale without any semantical
anchors. Finally, in Experiment 3 and Experiment
4 we tested whether the disembodiment of the
virtual hand can be prevented ifusers are explicitly
informed that after a brief movement break, they
would have to actively control the virtual hand
again. Based on ﬁndings showing that recalled or
imagined agency can enhance embodiment of an
external object (Bassolino et al., 2010; Cardinali
et al., 2021; Liepelt et al., 2017), we assumed that
anticipated agency might prevent disembodiment.
The four experiments that we report in the
following were online studies and participants
conducted the experiments remotely on their own
personal computers. Participants were prompted to
use a desktop computer for the study and to refrain
from using any touchscreen functionality of their
device. At the end of the study, participants were
invited to report their idea of what the purpose of
the current study was. We checked whether in-
cluding datasets of participants whose description
came close to the actual aim of the study by
mentioning concepts such as body representation
or embodiment (none in Experiment 1; three in
Experiment 2; seven in Experiment 3; sixteen in
Experiment 4) would change the observed pattern
of results. This was not the case, however. All
experiments were conducted according to the
ethical regulations of the Ethics Committee of the
Institute of Psychology, University of Würzburg.
Informed consent was obtained from each participant.