Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 196–204 | Cite as

My hand in my ear: a phantom limb re-induced by the illusion of body ownership in a patient with a brachial plexus lesion

  • Mariella PazzagliaEmail author
  • Giorgio Scivoletto
  • Anna Maria Giannini
  • Erik Leemhuis
Original Article
  • 105 Downloads

Abstract

Corporeal awareness of body unity, continuity, and integrity is hardwired in the brain, even following massive deafferentation. Following peripheral limb injury, referred phantom sensations are reported frequently on the cheek and, rarely, on the ear. Here, we explore how brain plasticity mechanisms induced by multisensory stimulation of different facial regions (cheek and ear) modulate the feeling that a complete missing limb is still attached to the body. We applied the modified rubber hand illusion (RHI) paradigm following synchronous and asynchronous stimulation of the face–hand and ear–hand in the unusual case of a patient with a brachial plexus lesion, who had lost upper-left limb sensation and developed a phantom sensation of the arm restricted to the ear. He experienced a strong illusion of ownership of the rubber hand during synchronous stroking of the ear but not the cheek and reported more defined tactile sensations in his previously numb body part during the illusion than when simply touching the ear. Phantom experiences are not exclusively based on sensory memories of the once-present body periphery, they are organized into a topographic cortical map with the ear–hand area adjoining but separate from the face. Multimodal experiences specifically modulate possible remapping of ear–hand representations and generate a more defined connection between the brain’s memory of the body and what one feels of the actual physical body. We suggest that RHI is a form of sensory intervention that makes the best use of residual signals from disconnected body parts after peripheral injury, evoking and controlling the limb sensations.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge research support from ANIA Foundation.

Author contributions

MP: study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, writing and drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. GS: performed acquisition of neurologic data. AG: critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. EL: drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The patient provided written informed consent to take part in the study.

References

  1. Aglioti, S., Cortese, F., & Franchini, C. (1994). Rapid sensory remapping in the adult human brain as inferred from phantom breast perception. Neuroreport, 5, 473–476.Google Scholar
  2. Agon, F., Mateo, S., Servajean, V., & Rode, G. 2014. Regression of supernumerary upper limb phantom and pain after left complete plexus brachial avulsion using mirror therapy: A single case study. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 57, e105.Google Scholar
  3. Andoh, J., Milde, C., Tsao, J. W., & Flor, H. (2018). Cortical plasticity as a basis of phantom limb pain: Fact or fiction? Neuroscience, 387, 85–91.Google Scholar
  4. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature, 391, 756.Google Scholar
  5. Burin, D., Livelli, A., Garbarini, F., et al. (2015). Are movements necessary for the sense of body ownership? Evidence from the rubber hand illusion in pure hemiplegic patients. PLoS One, 10, e0117155.Google Scholar
  6. Chan, B. L., Witt, R., Charrow, A. P., et al. (2007). Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 2206–2207.Google Scholar
  7. Ehrsson, H. H., Rosen, B., Stockselius, A., Ragno, C., Kohler, P., & Lundborg, G. (2008). Upper limb amputees can be induced to experience a rubber hand as their own. Brain, 131, 3443–3452.Google Scholar
  8. Flor, H., Elbert, T., Knecht, S., et al. (1995). Phantom-limb pain as a perceptual correlate of cortical reorganization following arm amputation. Nature, 375, 482–484.Google Scholar
  9. Flor, H., Nikolajsen, L., & Staehelin Jensen, T. (2006). Phantom limb pain: A case of maladaptive CNS plasticity? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 873–881.Google Scholar
  10. Frangos, E., Ellrich, J., & Komisaruk, B. R. (2015). Non-invasive access to the vagus nerve central projections via electrical stimulation of the external ear: fMRI evidence in humans. Brain Stimulation, 8, 624–636.Google Scholar
  11. Galli, G., Lenggenhager, B., Scivoletto, G., Molinari, M., & Pazzaglia, M. (2015). Don’t look at my wheelchair! The plasticity of longlasting prejudice. Medical Education, 49, 1239–1247.Google Scholar
  12. Galli, G., & Pazzaglia, M. (2015). Commentary on: “The body social: An enactive approach to the self”. A tool for merging bodily and social self in immobile individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 305.Google Scholar
  13. Ichinose, A., Sano, Y., Osumi, M., Sumitani, M., Kumagaya, S., & Kuniyoshi, Y. (2017). Somatosensory feedback to the cheek during virtual visual feedback therapy enhances pain alleviation for phantom arms. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 31, 717–725.Google Scholar
  14. Kaas, J. H., Merzenich, M. M., & Killackey, H. P. (1983). The reorganization of somatosensory cortex following peripheral nerve damage in adult and developing mammals. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 6, 325–356.Google Scholar
  15. Kalckert, A., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2014). The moving rubber hand illusion revisited: Comparing movements and visuotactile stimulation to induce illusory ownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 26, 117–132.Google Scholar
  16. Komisaruk, B. R., Whipple, B., Crawford, A., Liu, W. C., Kalnin, A., & Mosier, K. (2004). Brain activation during vaginocervical self-stimulation and orgasm in women with complete spinal cord injury: fMRI evidence of mediation by the vagus nerves. Brain Research, 1024, 77–88.Google Scholar
  17. Leinberry, C. F., & Wehbe, M. A. (2004). Brachial plexus anatomy. Hand Clinics, 20, 1–5.Google Scholar
  18. Lenggenhager, B., Pazzaglia, M., Scivoletto, G., Molinari, M., & Aglioti, S. M. (2012). The sense of the body in individuals with spinal cord injury. PLoS One, 7, e50757.Google Scholar
  19. Lenggenhager, B., Scivoletto, G., Molinari, M., & Pazzaglia, M. (2013). Restoring tactile awareness through the rubber hand illusion in cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 27, 704–708.Google Scholar
  20. Lucci, G., & Pazzaglia, M. (2015). Towards multiple interactions of inner and outer sensations in corporeal awareness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 163.Google Scholar
  21. Lucenteforte, E., Moja, L., Pecoraro, V., et al. (2015). Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 246–256.Google Scholar
  22. Makin, T. R., & Bensmaia, S. J. (2017). Stability of sensory topographies in adult cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 195–204.Google Scholar
  23. Merzenich, M. M., Nelson, R. J., Stryker, M. P., Cynader, M. S., Schoppmann, A., & Zook, J. M. (1984). Somatosensory cortical map changes following digit amputation in adult monkeys. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 224, 591–605.Google Scholar
  24. Mohan, R., Jensen, K. B., Petkova, V. I., Dey, A., Barnsley, N., Ingvar, M., et al. (2012). No pain relief with the rubber hand illusion. PLoS One, 7(12), e52400.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052400.Google Scholar
  25. Nihashi, T., Kakigi, R., Hoshiyama, M., et al. (2003). Effect of tactile interference stimulation of the ear in human primary somatosensory cortex: A magnetoencephalographic study. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 1866–1878.Google Scholar
  26. Nihashi, T., Kakigi, R., Kawakami, O., et al. (2001). Representation of the ear in human primary somatosensory cortex. NeuroImage, 13, 295–304.Google Scholar
  27. Nihashi, T., Kakigi, R., Okada, T., et al. (2002). Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for a representation of the ear in human primary somatosensory cortex: Comparison with magnetoencephalography study. NeuroImage, 17, 1217–1226.Google Scholar
  28. Pazzaglia, M. (2015). Body and odors: Non just molecules, after all. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 329–333.Google Scholar
  29. Pazzaglia, M., Galli, G., Lewis, J. W., Scivoletto, G., Giannini, A. M., & Molinari, M. (2018a). Embodying functionally relevant action sounds in patients with spinal cord injury. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 15641.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34133-z.Google Scholar
  30. Pazzaglia, M., Galli, G., Lucci, G., Scivoletto, G., Molinari, M., & Haggard, P. (2018b). Phantom limb sensations in the ear of a patient with a brachial plexus lesion. Cortex.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.08.020.Google Scholar
  31. Pazzaglia, M., Haggard, P., Scivoletto, G., Molinari, M., & Lenggenhager, B. (2016). Pain and somatic sensation are transiently normalized by illusory body ownership in a patient with spinal cord injury. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 34, 603–613.Google Scholar
  32. Pazzaglia, M., & Molinari, M. (2016a). The embodiment of assistive devices-from wheelchair to exoskeleton. Physics of Life Reviews, 16, 163–175.Google Scholar
  33. Pazzaglia, M., & Molinari, M. (2016b). The re-embodiment of bodies, tools, and worlds after spinal cord injury: An intricate picture: Reply to comments on “The embodiment of assistive devices-From wheelchair to exoskeleton”. Physics of Life Reviews, 16, 191–194.Google Scholar
  34. Pazzaglia, M., & Zantedeschi, M. (2016). Plasticity and awareness of bodily distortion. Neural Plasticity, 2016, 9834340.Google Scholar
  35. Peuker, E. T., & Filler, T. J. (2002). The nerve supply of the human auricle. Clinical Anatomy, 15, 35–37.Google Scholar
  36. Pons, T. P., Garraghty, P. E., Ommaya, A. K., Kaas, J. H., Taub, E., & Mishkin, M. (1991). Massive cortical reorganization after sensory deafferentation in adult macaques. Science, 252, 1857–1860.Google Scholar
  37. Pourrier, S. D., Nieuwstraten, W., Van Cranenburgh, B., Schreuders, T. A., Stam, H. J., & Selles, R. W. (2010). Three cases of referred sensation in traumatic nerve injury of the hand: Implications for understanding central nervous system reorganization. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42, 357–361.Google Scholar
  38. Ramachandran, V. S. (1996). What neurological syndromes can tell us about human nature: Some lessons from phantom limbs, capgras syndrome, and anosognosia. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 61, 115–134.Google Scholar
  39. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1998). The perception of phantom limbs. The D. O. Hebb lecture. Brain, 121(Pt 9), 1603–1630.Google Scholar
  40. Redgrave, J. N., Moore, L., Oyekunle, T., et al. (2018). Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation with concurrent upper limb repetitive task practice for poststroke motor recovery: A pilot study. The Journal of Stroke & Cerebrovascular Diseases, 27, 1998–2005.Google Scholar
  41. Riva, G. (2018). The neuroscience of body memory: From the self through the space to the others. Cortex, 104, 241–260.Google Scholar
  42. Russell, H. G., & Tsao, J. W. (2018). Phantom sensations following brachial plexus nerve block: A case report. Frontiers in Neurology, 9, 436.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00436.Google Scholar
  43. Schmalzl, L., Kalckert, A., Ragno, C., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2014). Neural correlates of the rubber hand illusion in amputees: A report of two cases. Neurocase, 20, 407–420.Google Scholar
  44. Slater, M., Spanlang, B., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Blanke, O. (2010). First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLoS One, 5, e10564.Google Scholar
  45. Subedi, B., & Grossberg, G. T. (2011). Phantom limb pain: Mechanisms and treatment approaches. Pain Research and Treatment, 2011, 864605.Google Scholar
  46. Tidoni, E., Grisoni, L., Liuzza, M. T., & Aglioti, S. M. (2014). Rubber hand illusion highlights massive visual capture and sensorimotor face-hand remapping in a tetraplegic man. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 32, 611–622.Google Scholar
  47. Tsao, J. W., Finn, S. B., & Miller, M. E. (2016). Reversal of phantom pain and hand-to-face remapping after brachial plexus avulsion. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology, 3, 463–464.Google Scholar
  48. Vaso, A., Adahan, H. M., Gjika, A., et al. (2014). Peripheral nervous system origin of phantom limb pain. Pain, 155, 1384–1391.Google Scholar
  49. Voss, M., Ingram, J. N., Haggard, P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2006). Sensorimotor attenuation by central motor command signals in the absence of movement. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 26–27.Google Scholar
  50. Walter, U., Zach, H., Liepelt-Scarfone, I., & Maetzler, W. (2017). Helpful instrumental examinations in idiopathic Parkinson’s syndrome. Nervenarzt, 88, 365–372.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”RomeItaly
  2. 2.IRCCS Fondazione Santa LuciaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations