Source
Ehrsson et al. (2022), LIT-1264, read in full in NOTE-997, claim C8, which NOTE-997 rates weak as an inference from the comment: it rests on the difference’s independence of hypnotisability (C1, C3) and on the asynchronous condition being a valid control (C6), and C6 is the point in dispute.
What is asserted
That the synchronous-minus-asynchronous difference in referred-touch and ownership reports is produced by the multisensory stimulation itself, so that it would survive if participants’ expectations of the two conditions were equal.
What the Active entry establishes toward it
THEORY-766 holds that the report difference replicates across studies, that the ownership report is the weaker and less reliable one, that drift is not a measure of the reports, and that the standard controls leave expectations unequal (d = 1.40 and 1.05 in unstimulated observers, Lush 2020). It does not decide between stimulation and expectation as the cause.
What would confirm or reject it
The promote_when, inherited unchanged from THEORY-766: a first-hand reading of a study that measures and matches the stimulated participants’ expectations of the two conditions and finds the synchrony difference surviving, each item reported on its own with trait suggestibility as a covariate. It is refuted if, with expectations matched, the conditions no longer differ on the ownership item.
What this does not say
- It does not say the reports are not influenced by suggestion. Ehrsson et al. found hypnotisability unrelated to the difference, not to the ratings, which it does predict.
- It does not revive drift as a measure. That clause of THEORY-765 failed its own refutation condition and stays failed.
- It is not the inference account. THEORY-769 explains ownership as a graded belief about a common cause; that is compatible with either answer here.