Heightened motor and sensory (mirror-touch) referral induced by nerve block or topical anesthetic

Case, Laura K.; Gosavi, Radhika S.; Ramachandran, Vilayanur S.

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.010

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, patients with anesthetic blocks of the brachial plexus (for orthopedic surgery) have been found to exhibit more sensory referral to the anesthetized arm than to the non-anesthetized arm, supporting the theory of inhibition of simulation by afferent sensation (Case et al 2010). Similarly, heightened mirror touch-confusion has been observed in healthy volunteers from a topical anesthetic cream, suggesting that sensory referral may be disinhibited rapidly when afferent sensation is reduced (Case et al 2013). …”

Section: The Sensory Systemmentioning

confidence: 95%

Common coding and dynamic interactions between observed, imagined, and experienced motor and somatosensory activity

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor imagery and perception- considered generally as forms of motor simulation- share overlapping neural representations with motor production. While much research has focused on the extent of this “common coding,” less attention has been paid to how these overlapping representations interact. How do imagined, observed, or produced actions influence one another, and how do we maintain control over our perception and behavior? In the first part of this review we describe interactions between motor production and motor simulation, and explore apparent regulatory mechanisms that balance these processes. Next, we consider the somatosensory system. Numerous studies now support a “sensory mirror system” comprised of neural representations activated by either afferent sensation or vicarious sensation. In the second part of this review we summarize evidence for shared representations of sensation and sensory simulation (including imagery and observed sensation), and suggest that similar interactions and regulation of simulation occur in the somatosensory domain as in the motor domain. We suggest that both motor and somatosensory simulations are flexibly regulated to support simulations congruent with our sensorimotor experience and goals and suppress or separate the influence of those that are not. These regulatory mechanisms are frequently revealed by cases of brain injury but can also be employed to facilitate sensorimotor rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: The Sensory Systemmentioning

confidence: 95%

Common coding and dynamic interactions between observed, imagined, and experienced motor and somatosensory activity

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The studies claiming no RS response in healthy subjects or pain other than PLP or CRPS ( Acerra, 2007 ; Krämer et al., 2008 ; Ramachandran & Rogers-Ramachandran, 1996 ; Sathian, 2000 ) reported on low numbers of up to 12 subjects. The larger studies, however, focusing on overall 229 healthy participants ( Case et al., 2013 ; Giummarra, Bradshaw, Nicholls, Hilti, & Brugger, 2011 ; Helmchen et al., 2013 ; Hoermann et al., 2012 ; Ro et al., 2004 ; Takasugi et al., 2011 ), reported between 9% and 100% RS response. This gives reason to believe that the healthy human brain is susceptible to touch perception mediated through a visual illusion and challenges the view that RS response indicates malfunctioning neural processing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…As described earlier, the 14 studies originally sourced, two ( Acerra & Moseley, 2005 ; Acerra, Souvlis, & Moseley, 2005 ) were grouped as part of a thesis ( Acerra, 2007 ) and with additional unpublished data from this thesis reported as A, B, C, and D for the purpose of this review. The remaining included studies are reported ( Case, Gosavi, & Ramachandran, 2013 ; Giummarra, Georgiou-Karistianis, Nicholls, Gibson, & Bradshaw, 2010 ; Helmchen, Palzer, Münte, Anders, & Sprenger, 2013 ; Hoermann, Franz, & Regenbrecht, 2012 ; Hunter, Katz, & Davis, 2003 ; Krämer, Seddigh, Lorimer Moseley, & Birklein, 2008 ; Peterzell et al., 2010 ; Ramachandran & Rogers-Ramachandran, 1996 ; Ro, Wallace, Hagedorn, Farnéé, & Pienkos, 2004 ; Sathian, 2000 ; Takasugi et al., 2011 ; Wand et al., 2014 ). One of these studies was only accessible as an abstract case report ( Peterzell et al., 2010 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies investigated RS on hands with the effect on the contralateral hand with the exception of three: Acerra (2007) , who stimulated feet in two patients with CRPS (A); Krämer et al. (2008) , who stimulated areas of neuropathic pain across the body; and Case et al. (2013) , who stimulated the face with the help of a double-mirror reflection.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inter-lateral Referral of Sensation in Health and Disease Using a Mirror Illusion—A Scoping Review

Hagenberg

Lambert

Jussab

et al. 2021

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Perception of touch is expected at the location where it is applied. However, there are indications that being touched may be perceived on the contralateral side when seen as a reflection in a mirror at midline. Such inter-lateral referral of sensation (RS) lacks evidence, as mirror therapy research usually focusses on movement-based techniques. This study aimed to map out existing research across disciplines regarding the effect of RS in health and disease, and to understand whether there is rehabilitation potential in RS. Method A scoping review was conducted to map out concepts and keywords across disciplines interested in this topic, using keywords in several languages, and a wide range of databases and additional sources. Results The review revealed mostly cross-sectional experiments and included over 486 participants: healthy, or with stroke, complex regional pain syndrome, amputation, nerve graft surgery or radial fracture. Procedures varied regarding stimulation tool, time and location, with two stimulating replacements, one the face and one a variety of areas. Response rates ranged from 0 to 100%. In general, RS was regarded as a phenomenon or even as a predictor of maladaptive neuroplasticity. There was little research into using RS stimulation as a modulatory tool to improve sensory perception. Conclusions RS challenges the understanding of touch perception and elicits a range of questions regarding neuro-processing. A modulatory approach using RS has not been described, requires investigation and, if promising, development as an intervention.

show abstract

“…A representação espelhada e este feed-back sensório-motor parecem estar em uma relação de equilíbrio dinâmico, conforme sugerem Case et al (2010). É razoável afirmar que a habilidade de sentir em seu próprio corpo o toque realizado em outrém não é prerrogativa apenas de sinestetas mirror-touch ou de situações desviantes .…”

Section: Denise Paiva Agustinhounclassified

Devorando a questão

Agustinho¹

2015

rdq

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heightened motor and sensory (mirror-touch) referral induced by nerve block or topical anesthetic

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

Common coding and dynamic interactions between observed, imagined, and experienced motor and somatosensory activity

Common coding and dynamic interactions between observed, imagined, and experienced motor and somatosensory activity

Inter-lateral Referral of Sensation in Health and Disease Using a Mirror Illusion—A Scoping Review

Devorando a questão

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About