Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (24)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hunter, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Davis, K. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hunter, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Davis, K. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Brain, Vol. 126, No. 3, 579-589, March 2003
© 2003 Guarantors of Brain
doi: 10.1093/brain/awg054

The effect of tactile and visual sensory inputs on phantom limb awareness

Judith P. Hunter1,7,8,9, Joel Katz2,3,5,6,8 and Karen D. Davis1,4,8

1 Toronto Western Research Institute, Toronto Western Hospital 2 Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, University Health Network, 3 Mount Sinai Hospital and 4 Departments of Surgery, 5 Public Health Sciences, 6 Anesthesia, 7 Physical Therapy and 8 Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto and 9 St John’s Rehabilitation Hospital and West Park Healthcare Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Correspondence to: Karen D. Davis, PhD, Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, MP14-306, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario M5T 2S8, Canada E-mail: kdavis{at}uhnres.utoronto.ca

Multiple sensory stimuli contribute to the conscious awareness of the body. It is well known that limb amputation can result in abnormal body awareness, but the manner in which the CNS constructs and updates a body schema after injury is largely unknown. The purpose of the present study was to systematically evaluate the effects of sensory inputs on phantom limb awareness (PLA) shortly after unilateral upper extremity amputation. The location, quality and intensity of spontaneous and tactile-evoked phantom sensations and awareness were assessed in 13 amputees who were referred sequentially for their initial post-operative rehabilitation. Subjects were tested in three visual conditions: (i) with their eyes open; (ii) with their eyes closed; and (iii) while they viewed their intact hand in a mirror, which created an illusion of their amputated hand (i.e. mirror visual illusion). The mirror illusion was also used to test the effect of combined visual and movement-related stimuli during active voluntary movement. Spontaneous PLA was reported by 12 of the 13 amputees and was not affected by normal visual inputs. Tactile stimulation of the residual limb or face evoked dual percepts in six amputees; i.e. these amputees perceived these touch stimuli as if they were being applied both to the stimulus site and also to a location on the missing limb. This mislocalization phenomenon was most prevalent in the eyes-closed condition. Thus, normal vision can strongly override the phantom component of touch-evoked dual percepts. In eight cases, the visual illusion of the missing limb transiently enhanced the spontaneous conscious awareness of the phantom limb. However, the visual illusion did not change the capacity of a tactile stimulus to induce dual percepts. These findings demonstrate that (i) phantom awareness of an amputated body part is common within the 14 months after traumatic upper extremity amputation, (ii) evoked dual percepts are less common than spontaneous PLA, (iii) visual, tactile and sensorimotor systems contribute to PLA, (iv) subtle changes in congruence of sensory information affects both evoked dual percepts and spontaneous PLA, however, (v) sensorimotor information pertaining to the state of the motor system can strongly influence spontaneous PLA, whereas the visual system can predominantly influence evoked PLA.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BrainHome page
H. H. Ehrsson, B. Rosen, A. Stockselius, C. Ragno, P. Kohler, and G. Lundborg
Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own
Brain, December 11, 2008; (2008) awn297v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Med. HumanitiesHome page
J Cole
Wittgenstein's neurophenomenology
Med. Humanit., June 1, 2007; 33(1): 59 - 64.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BrainHome page
J. P. Hunter, J. Katz, and K. D. Davis
Dissociation of phantom limb phenomena from stump tactile spatial acuity and sensory thresholds
Brain, February 1, 2005; 128(2): 308 - 320.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.