The entire "Further Research" section ought to be removed until actual research can be identified and articulated.
The illusion described in the article is not the illusion described in at least two of the three references/links. (I haven't been able to read the Oxford journal article.) The article talks about an illusion that fools the arm about whether it's moving, while the references talk about an illusion that fools the arm about whose nose is whose. I don't know if the current text should be completely replaced or if there are really two versions of the illusion. —Toby Bartels (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Last modified on 11 May 2013, at 21:55