In a recent study, Lush et al. (Nat Commun 11, 4853, 2020) claimed that they found “substantial relationships” between hypnotizability and experimental measures of the rubber hand illusion. The authors proposed that hypnotizable participants control their phenomenology to meet task expectations arising from the experimental paradigm. They further suggest that the rubber hand illusion “may or may not” be entirely explained by hypnotic suggestions driven by task expectancies and therefore could reflect top-down control of perception, instead of multisensory mechanisms. However, in reanalyzing their data, we observe no significant relationships between hypnotic suggestibility and the rubber hand illusion when quantified using a control condition in line with the authors’ preregistered hypothesis. Furthermore, we note that the relationships that the authors describe are weak and observed for a visual “hallucination” control experience and in the control condition, indicating a general influence of hypnotizability on cognition, rather than sensations that specifically relate to the rubber hand illusion. Overall, the results fit well with the view that the rubber hand illusion is a perceptual illusion driven primarily by multisensory mechanisms.
Observers fail to detect that behavior is the control of perception: A computer demonstration of unintended writing.
