pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.05220 · v1 · pith:DMSMUHCBnew · submitted 2019-07-11 · 💻 cs.HC

The Illusion of Animal Body Ownership and Its Potential for Virtual Reality Games

Andrey Krekhov , Sebastian Cmentowski , Jens Kr\"uger This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 22:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords virtual realitybody ownershipnonhumanoid avatarsanimal embodimentVR gamesembodiment illusionvirtual animalshuman-computer interaction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Virtual body ownership in VR extends to animal avatars and can outperform human-like ones in some cases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether people can feel a virtual body as their own when the avatar is an animal rather than a human. It tries different ways to track and control bodies such as spiders or bats and measures the resulting sense of ownership. Results indicate the illusion occurs with these nonhuman shapes and sometimes feels stronger than with human avatars. A survey finds broad interest in using animal forms for games and learning. If the claim holds, VR embodiment is not limited to human shapes.

Core claim

The paper establishes that virtual body ownership illusions, previously studied mainly with humanoid avatars, also occur with nonhumanoid animal avatars. Using various body tracking approaches for creatures like spiders or bats, experiments demonstrate that the ownership effect is applicable and can outperform human-like avatars in certain cases. An additional survey indicates general interest in such experiences for educational and entertainment purposes.

What carries the argument

Body tracking methods that let users control nonhumanoid creatures and thereby trigger the virtual body ownership illusion.

If this is right

  • Animal avatars become viable options for VR applications beyond human forms.
  • Ownership illusions can be stronger with certain nonhumanoid bodies than with humanoid ones.
  • Public interest supports using animal embodiment in entertainment and education.
  • VR games gain new possibilities by letting players control creatures like spiders or bats.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Game designers could build mechanics around animal-specific movement and senses.
  • Educators might use animal embodiment to teach biology or perspective-taking.
  • Future work could test ownership with a wider range of animal bodies and tracking quality.
  • Questions arise about whether the illusion depends on matching human movement patterns or works through other cues.

Load-bearing premise

The selected tracking methods for animals are good enough to create an ownership illusion that matches or exceeds what human avatars produce.

What would settle it

A study in which users report no ownership feeling or weaker ownership for the tracked animal avatars than for human ones would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.05220 by Andrey Krekhov, Jens Kr\"uger, Sebastian Cmentowski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two of our avatars in first-person (top) and third-person (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Three virtual animals, their controls in FB mode, and the human avatar that was used as the reference for IVBO comparisons. The animals were [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: We chose a virtual zoo for our testbed scenario. The cage is equipped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean scores and standard deviations for the three IVBO dimensions: acceptance, control, and change. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean scores and standard deviations for fascination ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A difference of 3NAV (left) to 3CAM and 3FOL (right) occurs when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Virtual reality offers the unique possibility to experience a virtual representation as our own body. In contrast to previous research that predominantly studied this phenomenon for humanoid avatars, our work focuses on virtual animals. In this paper, we discuss different body tracking approaches to control creatures such as spiders or bats and the respective virtual body ownership effects. Our empirical results demonstrate that virtual body ownership is also applicable for nonhumanoids and can even outperform human-like avatars in certain cases. An additional survey confirms the general interest of people in creating such experiences and allows us to initiate a broad discussion regarding the applicability of animal embodiment for educational and entertainment purposes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper explores virtual body ownership (VBO) illusions in VR for nonhumanoid avatars such as spiders and bats. It describes body-tracking mappings (e.g., inverse kinematics for spider legs, wing flapping for bats), reports empirical results from questionnaire and physiological measures indicating that VBO can be induced for these avatars and sometimes exceeds humanoid performance, and presents a survey on user interest for educational and entertainment uses.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the work extends the VBO/rubber-hand illusion literature beyond humanoids with direct implications for VR game design. The dual use of subjective and physiological measures is a methodological strength, and the survey provides practical grounding for applicability claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section: the central claim that nonhumanoid avatars 'can even outperform human-like avatars in certain cases' rests on reported ownership scores, but the manuscript supplies no sample sizes, statistical tests (e.g., t-tests or ANOVA), effect sizes, or exclusion criteria, preventing evaluation of whether the data actually support the outperformance assertion.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: the tracking mappings for spiders and bats are described at a high level, yet no quantitative validation (e.g., degrees of freedom, latency measurements, or pilot data confirming illusion strength) is given to establish that these mappings induce a convincing VBO comparable to or better than humanoid setups; this is load-bearing for the weakest assumption.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the empirical claim is asserted without any numerical or statistical qualifiers; adding a sentence on participant count and key findings would improve clarity.
  2. [Discussion] The discussion of educational/entertainment applications would benefit from explicit comparison to existing VBO game literature (e.g., references to prior humanoid VR studies).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the potential significance of extending virtual body ownership research to nonhumanoid avatars. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to address the identified gaps in reporting.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: the central claim that nonhumanoid avatars 'can even outperform human-like avatars in certain cases' rests on reported ownership scores, but the manuscript supplies no sample sizes, statistical tests (e.g., t-tests or ANOVA), effect sizes, or exclusion criteria, preventing evaluation of whether the data actually support the outperformance assertion.

    Authors: We agree that the results section requires explicit statistical reporting to support the outperformance claim. The revised manuscript will add the participant sample size, the statistical tests performed on the ownership questionnaire scores (including any t-tests or ANOVA), effect sizes, and details on exclusion criteria. This will allow readers to properly evaluate the empirical findings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the tracking mappings for spiders and bats are described at a high level, yet no quantitative validation (e.g., degrees of freedom, latency measurements, or pilot data confirming illusion strength) is given to establish that these mappings induce a convincing VBO comparable to or better than humanoid setups; this is load-bearing for the weakest assumption.

    Authors: We will expand the methods section with additional quantitative details on the tracking mappings, such as the degrees of freedom used in the inverse kinematics for the spider avatar and the mechanics for bat wing flapping. Available system latency information will be reported. Any pilot testing conducted to validate the setups will also be summarized. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is an empirical HCI study reporting results from user experiments on virtual body ownership with nonhumanoid avatars (spiders, bats, etc.). It contains no derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions that reduce to inputs by construction. Claims rest on questionnaire scores, physiological data, and survey responses described in the methods and results sections. No self-citation chains or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing premises. The argument is self-contained against external benchmarks (participant data) and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No mathematical model, free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are present; the paper is an empirical HCI user study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5628 in / 968 out tokens · 25545 ms · 2026-05-24T22:46:09.832431+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality,

    M. Slater, B. Spanlang, M. V . Sanchez-Vives, and O. Blanke, “First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality,” PloS one, vol. 5, no. 5, p. e10564, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body,

    M. Slater, D. P ´erez Marcos, H. Ehrsson, and M. V . Sanchez-Vives, “Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 3, p. 29, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    The impact of avatar personalization and immersion on virtual body ownership, presence, and emotional response,

    T. Waltemate, D. Gall, D. Roth, M. Botsch, and M. E. Latoschik, “The impact of avatar personalization and immersion on virtual body ownership, presence, and emotional response,” IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1643–1652, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Eagle Flight,

    Ubisoft Montreal, “ Eagle Flight,” Game [VR], October 2016, last played January 2019

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature,

    S. J. Ahn, J. Bostick, E. Ogle, K. L. Nowak, K. T. McGillicuddy, and J. N. Bailenson, “Experiencing nature: Embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 399–419, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Anthropomorphism and illu- sion of virtual body ownership,

    J.-L. Lugrin, J. Latt, and M. E. Latoschik, “Anthropomorphism and illu- sion of virtual body ownership,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence and 20th Eurographics Symposium on Virtual Environments . Eurographics Association, 2015, pp. 1–8

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Rubber hands feeltouch that eyes see,

    M. Botvinick and J. Cohen, “Rubber hands feeltouch that eyes see,” Nature, vol. 391, no. 6669, p. 756, 1998

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution

    M. Tsakiris and P. Haggard, “The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , vol. 31, no. 1, p. 80, 2005

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    My body in the brain: a neurocognitive model of body- ownership,

    M. Tsakiris, “My body in the brain: a neurocognitive model of body- ownership,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 703–712, 2010

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences,

    H. H. Ehrsson, “The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences,” Science, vol. 317, no. 5841, pp. 1048–1048, 2007

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    If i were you: perceptual illusion of body swapping,

    V . I. Petkova and H. H. Ehrsson, “If i were you: perceptual illusion of body swapping,” PloS one, vol. 3, no. 12, p. e3832, 2008

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness,

    B. Lenggenhager, T. Tadi, T. Metzinger, and O. Blanke, “Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness,” Science, vol. 317, no. 5841, pp. 1096–1099, 2007

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion,

    M. Slater, D. P ´erez Marcos, H. Ehrsson, and M. V . Sanchez-Vives, “Towards a digital body: the virtual arm illusion,” Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol. 2, p. 6, 2008

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    Illusory ownership of a virtual child body causes overestimation of object sizes and implicit attitude changes,

    D. Banakou, R. Groten, and M. Slater, “Illusory ownership of a virtual child body causes overestimation of object sizes and implicit attitude changes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 110, no. 31, pp. 12 846–12 851, 2013

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Virtual hand illusion induced by visuomotor correlations,

    M. V . Sanchez-Vives, B. Spanlang, A. Frisoli, M. Bergamasco, and M. Slater, “Virtual hand illusion induced by visuomotor correlations,” PloS one, vol. 5, no. 4, p. e10381, 2010

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    Is my hand connected to my body? the impact of body continuity and arm alignment on the virtual hand illusion,

    D. Perez-Marcos, M. V . Sanchez-Vives, and M. Slater, “Is my hand connected to my body? the impact of body continuity and arm alignment on the virtual hand illusion,” Cognitive neurodynamics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 295–305, 2012

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion,

    A. Maselli and M. Slater, “The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion,” Frontiers in human neuroscience , vol. 7, p. 83, 2013

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    Need a hand?: how appearance affects the virtual hand illusion,

    L. Lin and S. J¨org, “Need a hand?: how appearance affects the virtual hand illusion,” in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception . ACM, 2016, pp. 69–76

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    The impact of avatar-owner visual similarity on body ownership in immersive virtual reality,

    D. Jo, K. Kim, G. F. Welch, W. Jeon, Y . Kim, K.-H. Kim, and G. J. Kim, “The impact of avatar-owner visual similarity on body ownership in immersive virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology . ACM, 2017, p. 77

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    G. Riva, J. Waterworth, and D. Murray, Interacting with Presence: HCI and the Sense of Presence in Computer-mediated Environments . Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2014

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Sensory substitution and the human– machine interface,

    P. Bach-y Rita and S. W. Kercel, “Sensory substitution and the human– machine interface,” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 541–546, 2003

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Extending body space in immersive virtual reality: a very long arm illusion,

    K. Kilteni, J.-M. Normand, M. V . Sanchez-Vives, and M. Slater, “Extending body space in immersive virtual reality: a very long arm illusion,” PloS one, vol. 7, no. 7, p. e40867, 2012

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    The effects of rotating the self out of the body in the full virtual body ownership illusion,

    K. J. Blom, J. Arroyo-Palacios, and M. Slater, “The effects of rotating the self out of the body in the full virtual body ownership illusion,” Perception, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 275–294, 2014

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    How many arms make a pair? perceptual illusion of having an additional limb,

    H. H. Ehrsson, “How many arms make a pair? perceptual illusion of having an additional limb,” Perception, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 310–312, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    The illusion of owning a third arm,

    A. Guterstam, V . I. Petkova, and H. H. Ehrsson, “The illusion of owning a third arm,” PloS one, vol. 6, no. 2, p. e17208, 2011

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    Human tails: ownership and control of extended humanoid avatars,

    W. Steptoe, A. Steed, and M. Slater, “Human tails: ownership and control of extended humanoid avatars,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, no. 4, pp. 583–590, 2013

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    Extending the human body in virtual reality: Effect of sensory feedback on agency and ownership of virtual wings,

    M. C. S. Egeberg, S. L. R. Lind, S. Serubugo, D. Skantarova, and M. Kraus, “Extending the human body in virtual reality: Effect of sensory feedback on agency and ownership of virtual wings,” in Proceedings of the 2016 Virtual Reality International Conference , ser. VRIC ’16. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2016, pp. 30:1–30:4. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm...

    work page doi:10.1145/2927929.2927940 2016

  28. [28]

    Homuncular flexibility: the human ability to inhabit nonhuman avatars,

    A. S. Won, J. N. Bailenson, and J. Lanier, “Homuncular flexibility: the human ability to inhabit nonhuman avatars,” Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, pp. 1–16, 2015

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Full-body ownership illusion can change our emotion,

    J. Jun, M. Jung, S.-Y . Kim, and K. K. Kim, “Full-body ownership illusion can change our emotion,” in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 2018, p. 601

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    The proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior,

    N. Yee and J. Bailenson, “The proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior,” Human communication research, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 271–290, 2007

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias,

    T. C. Peck, S. Seinfeld, S. M. Aglioti, and M. Slater, “Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias,” Consciousness and cognition, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 779–787, 2013

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Drumming in immersive virtual reality: the body shapes the way we play,

    K. Kilteni, I. Bergstrom, and M. Slater, “Drumming in immersive virtual reality: the body shapes the way we play,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics , no. 4, pp. 597–605, 2013

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Avatar anthropomorphism and acrophobia,

    J.-L. Lugrin, I. Polyschev, D. Roth, and M. E. Latoschik, “Avatar anthropomorphism and acrophobia,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology . ACM, 2016, pp. 315–316

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Alpha ivbo- construction of a scale to measure the illusion of virtual body ownership,

    D. Roth, J.-L. Lugrin, M. E. Latoschik, and S. Huber, “Alpha ivbo- construction of a scale to measure the illusion of virtual body ownership,” in Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, 2017, pp. 2875–2883

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Vr animals: Surreal body ownership in virtual reality games,

    A. Krekhov, S. Cmentowski, and J. Kr ¨uger, “Vr animals: Surreal body ownership in virtual reality games,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts , ser. CHI PLAY ’18 Extended Abstracts. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2018, pp. 503–511. [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3270316.3271531

    work page doi:10.1145/3270316.3271531 2018

  36. [36]

    Characterizing embodied interaction in first and third person perspective viewpoints,

    H. Galvan Debarba, E. Molla, B. Herbelin, and R. Boulic, “Characterizing embodied interaction in first and third person perspective viewpoints,” in 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI) , no. EPFL-CONF- 206979, 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments,

    J. J. LaViola Jr, “A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments,” ACM SIGCHI Bulletin , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 47–56, 2000

    work page 2000

  38. [38]

    Introduction to inverse kinematics with jacobian transpose, pseudoinverse and damped least squares methods,

    S. R. Buss, “Introduction to inverse kinematics with jacobian transpose, pseudoinverse and damped least squares methods,” IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation , vol. 17, no. 1-19, p. 16, 2004

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    Fakemi: a fake mirror system for avatar embodiment studies,

    M. E. Latoschik, J.-L. Lugrin, and D. Roth, “Fakemi: a fake mirror system for avatar embodiment studies,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology . ACM, 2016, pp. 73–76

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand,

    D. M. Lloyd, “Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand,” Brain and cognition , vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 104–109, 2007

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    The sense of embodiment in virtual reality,

    K. Kilteni, R. Groten, and M. Slater, “The sense of embodiment in virtual reality,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 373–387, 2012

    work page 2012