Table 2

ANOVA results for the effects of synchronous and asynchronous stroking on the RHI*†

Proprioceptive driftEffectCase–controlOffspring
Unstimulated handGroupF1,104 = 0.31, p = 0.58, ηp2 = 0.003F2,70 = 0.09, p = 0.92, ηp2 = 0.003
SynchronicityF1,104 = 0.07, p = 0.80, ηp2 = 0.001F1,70 = 0.05, p = 0.82, ηp2 = 0.001
Synchronicity × groupF1,104 = 0.01, p = 0.93, ηp2 < 0.001F2,70 = 0.04, p = 0.96, ηp2 = 0.001
Stimulated handGroupF1,104 = 0.04, p = 0.85, ηp2 < 0.001F2,70 = 1.23, p = 0.30, ηp2 = 0.03
SynchronicityF1,104 = 26.86, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.21†F1,70 = 21.94, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.24
Synchronicity × groupF1,104 = 0.08, p = 0.78, ηp2 = 0.001F2,70 = 0.25, p = 0.78, ηp2 = 0.01
Subjective RHIGroupF1,107 = 0.79, p = 0.38, ηp2 = 0.007F2,72 = 0.15, p = 0.86, ηp2 = 0.004
SynchronicityF1,107 = 107.92, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.50†F1,72 = 140.75, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.66
Synchronicity × groupF1,107 = 5.04, p = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.05†F2,72 = 1.07, p = 0.35, ηp2 = 0.03

  • ANOVA = analysis of variance; RHI = rubber hand illusion.

  • ↵* Because the data did not meet all assumptions for parametric testing, we also performed nonparametric tests, which yielded similar results.

  • ↵† For raw means and standard deviations, see Appendix 1, Table S1.