Brain Holds Hand at Arm's Length from Reality

Subjects consistently misjudge the dimensions of their own hidden hand, with the less sensitive hand regions being the site of the largest errors. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It’s probably happened to you: a friend says, “I know this place like the back of my hand,” and then proceeds to get you hopelessly lost. Well, it could be that they really did know it like the back of their hand. Because researchers have found that people don’t actually know their hands as well as they think they do. The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Matthew Longo and Patrick Haggard, URL to be posted shortly.]

We all have “mental representations” of our body parts. So when our hands or feet are out of sight, we still know pretty much where they are and what they look like. But just how accurate is our mental picture?

Scientists had volunteers place one hand, palm down, under a board. And they asked the subjects to guess, by pointing to the board with their other hand, where their hidden knuckles and fingertips lay.

The results? Participants thought their hands were about two thirds wider and one third shorter than they really were. And their finger length estimates got worse as they moved away from their thumbs. That’s interesting, because finger sensitivity declines as you head towards the pinky. So our mental body maps seem to reflect our ability to feel. Oh, and for their gripping results, let’s give the researchers a hand.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe