Verify the Blanke 2002 (Nature) and 2014 (Current Biology) quotes verbatim against the primary papers

Answers question-verify-blanke-2002-2014-primary-quotes, which flagged that claim-angular-gyrus-stimulation-induced-out-of-body-experience and claim-robot-induced-feeling-of-a-presence-models-patient-hallucination had been capture-verified only from PubMed abstract records, with the papers themselves paywalled at capture time. This run attempted to obtain and diff against the primary full texts.

Claim: The 2002 Nature quote is verified verbatim against the full primary text

Claim type: Technical-mechanism / historical (single-patient finding). Floor: Tier 1–2 required.

A copy of the actual Nature "brief communications" page (Blanke, Ortigue, Landis & Seeck, Nature 419:269–270, 19 September 2002) was located at a university course-materials mirror and pulled via extract_pdf (tls: "verified", 2 pages, pdftotext extraction). The extracted text is a line-for-line transcription of the published Nature page, including the figure caption, author affiliations, and reference list — i.e., this is the paper itself, not a summary. The sentence in question reads, verbatim:

"Stimulation at this site also elicited illusory transformations of the patient's arm and legs (complex somatosensory responses) and whole-body displacements (vestibular responses), indicating that out-of-body experiences may reflect a failure by the brain to integrate complex somatosensory and vestibular information."

This is an exact match to the quote already recorded in claim-angular-gyrus-stimulation-induced-out-of-body-experience. Two further details from that claim-note are also confirmed against the primary text: the stimulation site was specifically the right angular gyrus ("the electrode site on the right angular gyrus where stimulation repeatedly induced OBEs"), and induction was reproducible within one patient (a 43-year-old right-handed woman with 11 years of drug-resistant complex partial seizures; the paper describes at least three separate stimulations producing the OBE/vestibular/somatosensory cluster). This claim can be upgraded from capture-verified to verified-verbatim.

Sourcing: Tier 1, full primary text read directly. Clears floor.

Claim: The 2014 Current Biology core mechanism quote is verified verbatim against the paper's own abstract

Claim type: Technical-mechanism claim. Floor: Tier 1–2 required.

The 2014 paper's full body text could not be obtained in this session (see "Further leads" for the paywall trail). However, PubMed's abstract record for this paper reproduces the authors' own abstract in full — this is verbatim primary-source text (the abstract is written by the authors and published as part of the paper), not a third-party paraphrase. Fetched directly from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25447995/, the relevant sentence reads, verbatim:

"These data show that the illusion of feeling another person nearby is caused by misperceiving the source and identity of sensorimotor (tactile, proprioceptive, and motor) signals of one's own body."

This is an exact match (modulo the surrounding sentence structure) to the quote recorded in claim-robot-induced-feeling-of-a-presence-models-patient-hallucination: "misperceiving the source and identity of sensorimotor (tactile, proprioceptive, and motor) signals." This sub-claim can be upgraded to verified-verbatim (abstract-level) — with the caveat that this confirms the abstract's wording, not an independent re-check of the discussion section, which remains inaccessible.

Sourcing: Tier 1 (author-written abstract, part of the primary published paper). Clears floor for this specific sentence.

Claim: The 2014 paper's "same experience... described by patients" quote and the robotic-method specifics could not be verified against primary full text

Claim type: Technical-mechanism / quote-accuracy claim. Floor: Tier 1–2 required.

Two elements of claim-robot-induced-feeling-of-a-presence-models-patient-hallucination remain unconfirmed against primary text after genuine effort this session:

1. The quote "the same experience spontaneously described by neurological and psychiatric patients" does not appear verbatim in the paper's abstract. The abstract's closest related sentence uses different wording: "Although it is described by neurological and psychiatric patients and healthy individuals in different situations, it is not yet understood how the phenomenon is triggered by the brain." The claim-note's quote may be drawn from the paper's introduction or discussion section, which was not reachable this session — [unverified-quote — needs primary].
2. The claim-note's paraphrase of the method ("spatiotemporally mismatched tactile feedback... to their own back") is not directly contradicted by anything found, but was also not confirmed against primary text this session — the abstract only says the team "designed a master-slave robotic system that generated specific sensorimotor conflicts," without the back-placement or delay/displacement specifics. [unverified-mechanism — needs primary].

Access attempts this session, all unsuccessful: cell.com fulltext and direct PDF link (HTTP 403 on both WebFetch and extract_pdf), ResearchGate publication page (HTTP 403 on extract_pdf), ScienceDirect (paywalled), EPFL Infoscience institutional-repository mirrors — records 204032 and handle 20.500.14299/109676, both listed by Unpaywall as open-access "submitted version" copies — returned HTTP 429 (rate-limited) on five separate attempts across two different URLs, and Europe PMC / PMC have no full-text record for this DOI. web.archive.org is not fetchable by the tools available this session.

Sourcing: No Tier 1–2 source found for these two specific sub-claims in this session. Recorded as gaps, not silently promoted.

Overall verdict on the core question

Partially resolved. The two most load-bearing verbatim quotes underlying the existing claim-notes — the 2002 Nature sentence about integration failure, and the 2014 Current Biology sentence about "misperceiving the source and identity of sensorimotor... signals" — are now confirmed verbatim against Tier 1 primary text (full paper for 2002; author's own abstract for 2014). The 2014 paper's body text (methods detail, and the "same experience... described by patients" phrasing) remains [unverified — could not confirm or deny after search] due to a genuinely paywalled/rate-limited primary source, not for lack of trying. question-verify-blanke-2002-2014-primary-quotes can be marked partially answered rather than closed.

Further leads

• EPFL Infoscience holds open-access "submitted version" copies of the 2014 paper at infoscience.epfl.ch/record/204032 and infoscience.epfl.ch/handle/20.500.14299/109676 (per Unpaywall) — repeatedly rate-limited (HTTP 429) this session; a retry in a later session, spaced out or via a different access path, would likely resolve the remaining gap.
• EPFL's own press release ("Neuroscientists awaken ghosts… hidden in our cortex," actu.epfl.ch) carries direct Blanke quotes on the mechanism in his own looser, non-paper phrasing (e.g., "the feeling of a presence... results from an alteration of 'sensorimotor' brain signals") — a Tier 1–2 lead for a distinct "Blanke's own public gloss on the mechanism" claim, not the same as the paper's text and not written up here to avoid duplicating the claims above.
• Unpaywall lists the 2014 paper as "Bronze" open access at cell.com itself — a reminder that an Unpaywall/OA listing does not guarantee the content is actually scrapeable; the publisher page 403'd on every direct fetch attempt.

Entity candidates

• Olaf Blanke — person — senior/corresponding author on both papers spanning 2002–2014; EPFL/Geneva neuroscientist whose lab name (LNCO) recurs across this whole cluster of vault claims.
• Feeling of a presence (FoP) — concept — the clinical/experimental term at the center of the 2014 paper and the "Third Man Factor" popular framing already tracked elsewhere in the vault.
• Out-of-body experience (OBE) — concept — the 2002 paper's core phenomenon; could anchor a standalone definitional note distinct from the single-patient case claim.
• Sensorimotor conflict — concept — the shared mechanism-word across both the 2002 stimulation result and the 2014 robotic induction, worth a definitional note of its own.