No pain relief with the rubber hand illusion

Rahul Mohan, Karin B Jensen, Valeria I Petkova, Abishikta Dey, Nadia Barnsley, Martin Ingvar, James H McAuley, G Lorimer Moseley, Henrik H Ehrsson, Rahul Mohan, Karin B Jensen, Valeria I Petkova, Abishikta Dey, Nadia Barnsley, Martin Ingvar, James H McAuley, G Lorimer Moseley, Henrik H Ehrsson

Abstract

The sense of body ownership can be easily disrupted during illusions and the most common illusion is the rubber hand illusion. An idea that is rapidly gaining popularity in clinical pain medicine is that body ownership illusions can be used to modify pathological pain sensations and induce analgesia. However, this idea has not been empirically evaluated. Two separate research laboratories undertook independent randomized repeated measures experiments, both designed to detect an effect of the rubber hand illusion on experimentally induced hand pain. In Experiment 1, 16 healthy volunteers rated the pain evoked by noxious heat stimuli (5 s duration; interstimulus interval 25 s) of set temperatures (47°, 48° and 49°C) during the rubber hand illusion or during a control condition. There was a main effect of stimulus temperature on pain ratings, but no main effect of condition (p = 0.32), nor a condition x temperature interaction (p = 0.31). In Experiment 2, 20 healthy volunteers underwent quantitative sensory testing to determine heat and cold pain thresholds during the rubber hand illusion or during a control condition. Secondary analyses involved heat and cold detection thresholds and paradoxical heat sensations. Again, there was no main effect of condition on heat pain threshold (p = 0.17), nor on cold pain threshold (p = 0.65), nor on any of the secondary measures (p<0.56 for all). We conclude that the rubber hand illusion does not induce analgesia.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Experimental 1 & 2– experimental…
Figure 1. Experimental 1 & 2– experimental set-up.
Figure 2. Experiment 1 results: Mean (columns)…
Figure 2. Experiment 1 results: Mean (columns) and standard error (error bars) for ratings to the illusion questions (Q1–Q3) and control questions (Q4–Q6) for the illusion (dark gray) and the control (light gray) conditions.
The scale ranges from ‘+3′ (‘I agree strongly’) to ‘−3′ (‘I disagree strongly’) with ‘0′ denoting uncertainty.
Figure 3. Experiment 1 results: Mean (columns)…
Figure 3. Experiment 1 results: Mean (columns) and standard error (error bars) for pain ratings after exposure to synchronous versus asynchronous visuo-tactile stimulation with the rubber hand for high (painful) and low (non-painful) temperature stimulation.
Figure 4. Experiment 2 results: Mean (rectangle)…
Figure 4. Experiment 2 results: Mean (rectangle) and standard deviation (error bars) heat pain threshold (HPT), cold pain thresholds (CPT) and thermal sensory lymen (TSL) in °C for the rubber hand illusion (rubber hand illusion; open shapes) control conditions.
Right panels show pain ratings on a 0–10 scale for the pain experienced for the threshold stimuli for heat pain threshold and cold pain threshold condition. The circled 32° reflects the baseline from which a ramping stimulus was used to determine both heat PT and cold PT.

References

    1. Ehrsson HH (2007) The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences. Science 317: 1048.
    1. Petkova VI, Ehrsson HH (2008) If I were you: perceptual illusion of body swapping. PLoS ONE 3: e3832.
    1. Walsh LD, Moseley GL, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC (2011) Proprioceptive signals contribute to the sense of body ownership. Journal of Physiology-London 589: 3009–3021.
    1. Newport R, Gilpin HR (2011) Multisensory disintegration and the disappearing hand trick. Current biology 21: R804–R805.
    1. Moseley GL, Parsons TJ, Spence C (2008) Visual distortion of a limb modulates the pain and swelling evoked by movement. Curr Biol 18: R1047–R1048.
    1. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391: 756.
    1. Makin TR, Holmes NP, Ehrsson HH (2008) On the other hand: Dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behavioural Brain Research 191: 1–10.
    1. Lloyd DM (2007) Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand. Brain and Cognition 64: 104–109.
    1. Azanon E, Longo MR, Soto-Faraco S, Haggard P (2010) The Posterior Parietal Cortex Remaps Touch into External Space. Current Biology 20: 1304–1309.
    1. Avillac M, Deneve S, Olivier E, Pouget A, Duhamel JR (2005) Reference frames for representing visual and tactile locations in parietal cortex. Nature Neuroscience 8: 941–949.
    1. Moseley GL, Olthof N, Venema A, Don S, Wijers M, et al. (2008) Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 13169–13173.
    1. Barnsley N, McAuley J, Mohan R, Dey A, Thomas P, et al. (2012) The rubber hand illusion increases histamine reactivity in the real arm. Current Biology 21: R945–946.
    1. Ehrsson HH, Wiech K, Weiskopf N, Dolan RJ, Passingham RE (2007) Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 9828–9833.
    1. Moseley GL (2004) Graded motor imagery is effective for long-standing complex regional pain syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Pain 108: 192–198.
    1. Moseley GL (2006) Graded motor imagery for pathologic pain–A randomized controlled trial. Neurology 67: 2129–2134.
    1. Moseley GL (2005) Is successful rehabilitation of complex regional pain syndrome due to sustained attention to the affected limb? A randomised clinical trial. Pain 114: 54–61.
    1. Daly AE, Bialocerkowski AE (2009) Does evidence support physiotherapy management of adult Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type One? A systematic review. European Journal of Pain 13: 339–353.
    1. Moseley GL, Flor H (2012) Targeting Cortical Representations in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Review. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 26: 646–652.
    1. Lenggenhager B, Tadi T, Metzinger T, Blanke O (2007) Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness. Science 317: 1096–1099.
    1. Hansel A, Lenggenhager B, von Kanel R, Curatolo M, Blanke O (2011) Seeing and identifying with a virtual body decreases pain perception. European journal of pain 15: 874–879.
    1. Kovacs F, Abraira V, Royuela A, Corcoll J, Alegre L, et al. (2008) Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 9: 43.
    1. Kelly A-M (2001) The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emergency Medicine Journal 18: 205–207.
    1. Gallace A, Torta DME, Moseley GL, Iannetti GD (2011) The analgesic effect of crossing the arms. Pain 152: 1418–1423.
    1. Moseley GL, Gallace A, Spence C (2012) Bodily illusions in health and disease: Physiological and clinical perspectives and the concept of a cortical ‘body matrix’. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 36: 34–46.
    1. Folegatti A, de Vignemont F, Pavani F, Rossetti Y, Farne A (2009) Losing One’s Hand: Visual-Proprioceptive Conflict Affects Touch Perception. PLoS ONE 4: e6920.
    1. Capelari E, Uribe C, Brasil Neto JP (2009) Feeling pain in the rubber hand: Integration of visual, proprioceptive and painful stimuli. Perception 38: 92–99.
    1. lriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y (1996) Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport 7: 2325–2330.
    1. Petkova VI, Bjornsdotter M, Gentile G, Jonsson T, Li TQ, et al. (2011) From Part- to Whole-Body Ownership in the Multisensory Brain. Current Biology 21: 1118–1122.
    1. Guterstam A, Ehrsson HH (2012) Disowning one’s seen real body during an out-of-body illusion. Consciousness and Cognition 21: 1037–1042.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren