Virtual Solutions to Phantom Problems: Using Immersive Virtual Reality to Treat Phantom Limb Pain

  • Craig D. Murray
  • Stephen Pettifer
  • Toby Howard
  • Emma Patchick
  • Fabrice Caillette
  • Joanne Murray


Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a common consequence of amputation, and many persons with amputations experience vivid sensations of pain in the absent body part. PLP can persist for many years post-amputation and is very difficult to treat, since its aetiology is hard to determine. However, converging lines of evidence demonstrate that when visual feedback is manipulated appropriately to represent movement of an amputee’s absent limb, it can evoke kinesthetic sensations of movement in that limb and decrease PLP. Most notably, the mirror box – where a mirror is placed vertically in front of the person with an amputation – is used in such a way as to reflect the image of an intact limb onto the phenomenal space of the absent or phantom limb. When amputees orient towards this mirror image kinaesthetic sensations can be evoked in the muscles and joints of their phantom limb, and PLP can be decreased.

Some researchers have highlighted limitations in the flexibility of the mirror box in providing a fully robust illusion of an absent limb as intact. Recently, three research groups have developed virtual reality systems informed by mirror-box work for the treatment of PLP. Although similar in intent and design, these systems have subtle differences. This chapter will outline these systems along with empirical findings, with a particular emphasis on the authors’ own virtual reality system.


Phantom Limb Virtual Reality System Phantom Limb Pain Data Glove Phantom Pain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Blakemore SJ, Wolpert DA, Frith CD (2002) Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Trends Cognitive Sci 6:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botvinik M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see. Nature 391(6669):756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brodie EE, Whyte A, Waller B (2003) Increased motor control of a phantom leg in humans results from the visual feedback of a virtual leg. Neurosci Lett 341(2):167–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cole J, Crowle S, Austwick G, Henderson Slater D (2009) Exploratory findings with virtual reality for phantom limb pain; from stump motion to agency and analgesia. Disabil Rehabil 31(10):846–854Google Scholar
  5. Desmond D, O’Neill K, De Paor A, McDarby G, MacLachlan M (2006) Augmenting the reality of phantom limbs: Three case studies using an augmented mirror-box procedure. J Prosthet Orthot 18(3):74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giraux P, Sirigu A (2003) Illusory movements of the paralyzed limb restore motor cortex activity. NeuroImage 20:S107–S111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Katz J (1992) Psychophysiological contribution to phantom limbs. Can J Psychiatr 37:282–298Google Scholar
  8. Kuttuva M, Flint JA, Burdea G, Phillips SLP, Craelius W (2003) VIA: A virtual interface for the arm of upper-limb amputees. Proc Second Int Workshop Virtual Rehabil:119–126Google Scholar
  9. Kuttuva M, Flint JA, Burdea G, Phillips SL, Craelius W (2005) Manipulation practice for upper-limb amputees using virtual reality. Published by Rutgers University, NJ, USA. Presence 14(2):175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MacLachlan M, McDonald M, Waloch J (2004) Mirror treatment of lower limb phantom pain: A case study. Disabil Rehabil 26:901–904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCabe CS, Haigh RC, Halligan P, Blake DR (2005) Simulating sensory-motor incongruence in health volunteers: Implications for a cortical model of pain. Rheumatology 44:509–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moseley GL, Gallace A, Spence C (2008) Is mirror therapy all it is cracked up to be? Current evidence and future directions. Pain 138:7–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murray CD (2004) An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disability and Rehabilitation 26(16):963–973Google Scholar
  14. Murray CD, Pettifer S, Caillette F, Patchick E, Howard T (2005) Immersive virtual reality as a rehabilitative technology for phantom limb experience. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Proc Fourth Int Workshop Virtual Real:144–151Google Scholar
  15. Murray CD, Patchick E, Pettifer S, Caillette F, Howard T (2006a) Immersive virtual reality as a rehabilitative technology for phantom limb experience: A protocol. Cyberpsychol Behav 9(2):167–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murray CD, Patchick E, Caillette F, Howard T, Pettifer S (2006b) Can immersive virtual reality reduce phantom limb pain? In: Westwood JD, Haluck RS, Hoffman HM, Mogel GT, Phillips R, Robb RA, Vosburgh KG (eds) Medicine meets virtual reality: Accelerating change in healthcare: Next medical toolkit. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 407–412Google Scholar
  17. Murray CD, Patchick EL, Pettifer S, Howard T, Caillette F, Kulkarni J, Bamford C (2006c) Investigating the efficacy of a virtual mirror-box in treating phantom limb pain in a sample of chronic sufferers. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 5:227–234Google Scholar
  18. Murray CD, Pettifer S, Howard T, Patchick EL, Caillette F, Kulkarni J, Bamford C (2007) The treatment of phantom limb pain using immersive virtual reality: Three case studies. Disabil Rehabil 29:1465–1469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Neill K, de Paor A, MacLachlan M, McDarby G (2003) An investigation into the performance of a virtual mirror-box for the treatment of phantom limb pain in amputees using augmented reality technology. In: Human-computer-interaction international 2003, conference proceedings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Phillips H (2000) They do it with mirrors – Who’d have thought that you could make the brain pay attention to a useless limb, or even exercise a phantom one, with only a mirror for help. New Sci 166:26–29Google Scholar
  21. Popescu VG, Burdea GC, Bouzit M, Hentz VR (2000) A virtual-reality-based telerehabilitation system with force feedback. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 4(1):45–51Google Scholar
  22. Ramachandran VS (2005) Plasticity and functional recovery in neurology. Clin Med 5(4):368–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D (1996) Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proc R Soc Lon, B Biol Sci 263:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosen B, Lundborg G (2005) Training with a mirror in rehabilitation of the hand. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 39(2):104–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sathian K, Greenspan AI, Wolf SL (2000) Doing it with mirrors: A case study of a novel approach to rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 14(1):73–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sherman RA, Sherman CJ, Parker L (1984) Chronic phantom and stump pain among American veterans: results of a survey. Pain 18:83–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stevens JA, Phillips Stoykov ME (2003) Using motor imagery in the rehabilitation of hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84:1090–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig D. Murray
    • 1
  • Stephen Pettifer
  • Toby Howard
  • Emma Patchick
  • Fabrice Caillette
  • Joanne Murray
  1. 1.School of Health and MedicineLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations