Attenuation of Pain Perception Induced by the Rubber Hand Illusion

Wen Fang, Ruyuan Zhang, Yijie Zhao, Liping Wang, Yong-Di Zhou, Wen Fang, Ruyuan Zhang, Yijie Zhao, Liping Wang, Yong-Di Zhou

Abstract

Adaptive behavior usually requires accurate representations of body positions and ownership, which rely on integration of multiple sources of sensory information. The rubber hand illusion (RHI) presents a compelling example demonstrating that the combination of visual and tactile signals strongly influences the subjective experience of body ownership. However, it still remains unclear how the perception of body ownership in turn alters other aspects of sensory processing, such as pain perception. In the present study, we examined whether the RHI could modulate the subjective experience of pain. We set three conditions corresponding to different levels of ownership of the rubber hand: the synchronous condition in which the rubber and the real hand were simultaneously stroked; the asynchronous condition in which the two hands were asynchronously stroked; the own-hand-only condition in which only the real hand was stroked. Results from the screening experiment indicated that subjects experienced the stronger RHI in the synchronous condition, compared with the strength of RHI in the other two conditions. In the main experiment, subjects were requested to report the intensity and unpleasantness of pain evoked by laser stimuli under the three stroking conditions. Results showed that pain ratings were significantly lower under the synchronous condition than those under the other two conditions, suggesting the RHI could induce a significant analgesic effect. Furthermore, the correlation analysis showed that the degree of the analgesic effect was positively correlated with the RHI strength across individuals. Taken together, these results suggest an analgesic effect of the RHI and support the potential usage of visual illusions in future translational research on pain.

Keywords: analgesic; body ownership; laser evoked pain; pain perception; rubber hand illusion.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Experimental setup (A) and task schematic diagram (B). (A) The laser point and five red points indicate six sites where pain stimulation is delivered to the subject’s real hidden hand. (B) A trial starts with an LED flash (∼0.5 s), immediately after which, continuous stroking begins. One minute after the onset of stroking, there is a second LED flash (∼0.5 s) indicating an upcoming pain stimulus. About 2 s after the second flash, stroking stops, and about 1 s later, a laser stimulus is delivered to the subject’s real hand. The trial ends after the subject rates pain intensity induced by the laser stimulus.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
The RHI strength in subject screening. (A) Rating scores on all nine questions in three stroking conditions. Error bars represent SEMs across subjects. All nine questions can be classified into two categories: illusion questions (Q1–Q3) and control questions (Q4–Q9). (B) Averaged rating scores on illusion questions and control questions in each stroking condition. RHI strength scores are higher in the synchronous condition than the other two conditions. These results suggest that our stroking manipulation indeed produces significant RHI effects in the synchronous condition but not in the other two conditions.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Attenuation by the RHI on perceived pain intensity and unpleasantness. (A) Rating scores of the RHI strength in the main experiment. Results indicate that three stroking conditions indeed produce different levels of the RHI. (B) Rating scores of pain intensity and unpleasantness in the three stroking conditions. Both scores reflect the level of perceived pain, which is lower in the synchronous condition compared to the other two conditions. For both (A,B), significant symbol conventions are ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01. (C) Pain intensity reduction index reflects the strength of the analgesic effect in the synchronous condition compared to the asynchronous condition. A larger value represents a stronger analgesic effect (see section “Materials and Methods”). Pain intensity reduction indices of individual subjects are significantly correlated with their illusion strength indices (r = 0.42, p = 0.040), which reflect the difference of the RHI strength in two stroking conditions (see section “Materials and Methods”). (D) Pain unpleasant reduction indices and illusion strength indices show a trend in correlation analysis at the individual level (r = 0.33, p = 0.11) similar to the analysis of pain intensity. For both (C,D), the shaded area represents the 95% confidence interval for correlations.

References

    1. Abdulkarim Z., Ehrsson H. H. (2016). No causal link between changes in hand position sense and feeling of limb ownership in the rubber hand illusion. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 78 707–720. 10.3758/s13414-015-1016-0
    1. Blanke O., Slater M., Serino A. (2015). Behavioral, neural, and computational principles of bodily self-consciousness. Neuron 88 145–166. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.029
    1. Botvinick M., Cohen J. (1998). Rubber hands ’feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756. 10.1038/35784
    1. Costantini M., Haggard P. (2007). The rubber hand illusion: sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Cons. Cogn. 16 229–240. 10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.001
    1. Ehrsson H. H. (2007). The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences. Science 317:1048. 10.1126/science.1142175
    1. Ehrsson H. H., Holmes N. P., Passingham R. E. (2005). Touching a rubber hand: feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas. J. Neurosci. 25 10564–10573. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0800-05.2005
    1. Ehrsson H. H., Spence C., Passingham R. E. (2004). That’s my hand! activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305 875–877. 10.1126/science.1097011
    1. Ehrsson H. H., Wiech K., Weiskopf N., Dolan R. J., Passingham R. E. (2007). Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 9828–9833. 10.1073/pnas.0610011104
    1. Eisenberger N. I., Master S. L., Inagaki T. K., Taylor S. E., Shirinyan D., Lieberman M. D., et al. (2011). Attachment figures activate a safety signal-related neural region and reduce pain experience. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 11721–11726. 10.1073/pnas.1108239108
    1. Gallace A., Torta D. M., Moseley G. L., Iannetti G. D. (2011). The analgesic effect of crossing the arms. Pain 152 1418–1423. 10.1016/j.pain.2011.02.029
    1. Gentile G., Guterstam A., Brozzoli C., Ehrsson H. H. (2013). Disintegration of multisensory signals from the real hand reduces default limb self-attribution: an fMRI study. J. Neurosci. 33 13350–13366. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1363-13.2013
    1. Haggard P., Iannetti G. D., Longo M. R. (2013). Spatial sensory organization and body representation in pain perception. Curr. Biol. 23 R164–R176. 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.047
    1. Hansel A., Lenggenhager B., Von Kanel R., Curatolo M., Blanke O. (2011). Seeing and identifying with a virtual body decreases pain perception. Eur. J. Pain 15 874–879. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.03.013
    1. Hegedus G., Darnai G., Szolcsanyi T., Feldmann A., Janszky J., Kallai J. (2014). The rubber hand illusion increases heat pain threshold. Eur. J. Pain 18 1173–1181. 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2014.00466.x
    1. Hofle M., Hauck M., Engel A. K., Senkowski D. (2012). Viewing a needle pricking a hand that you perceive as yours enhances unpleasantness of pain. Pain 153 1074–1081. 10.1016/j.pain.2012.02.010
    1. Hohwy J., Paton B. (2010). Explaining away the body: experiences of supernaturally caused touch and touch on non-hand objects within the rubber hand illusion. PLoS One 5:e9416. 10.1371/journal.pone.0009416
    1. Holle H., Mclatchie N., Maurer S., Ward J. (2011). Proprioceptive drift without illusions of ownership for rotated hands in the “rubber hand illusion” paradigm. Cogn. Neurosci. 2 171–178. 10.1080/17588928.2011.603828
    1. Kalckert A., Ehrsson H. H. (2014). The moving rubber hand illusion revisited: comparing movements and visuotactile stimulation to induce illusory ownership. Consc. Cogn. 26 117–132. 10.1016/j.concog.2014.02.003
    1. Kilteni K., Ehrsson H. H. (2017). Body ownership determines the attenuation of self-generated tactile sensations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114 8426–8431. 10.1073/pnas.1703347114
    1. Lenggenhager B., Scivoletto G., Molinari M., Pazzaglia M. (2013). Restoring tactile awareness through the rubber hand illusion in cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil. Neural. Repair 27 704–708. 10.1177/1545968313491009
    1. Lenggenhager B., Tadi T., Metzinger T., Blanke O. (2007). Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science 317 1096–1099. 10.1126/science.1143439
    1. Lloyd D. M. (2007). Spatial limits on referred touch to an alien limb may reflect boundaries of visuo-tactile peripersonal space surrounding the hand. Brain Cogn. 64 104–109. 10.1016/j.bandc.2006.09.013
    1. Longo M. R., Betti V., Aglioti S. M., Haggard P. (2009). Visually induced analgesia: seeing the body reduces pain. J. Neurosci. 29 12125–12130. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3072-09.2009
    1. Longo M. R., Iannetti G. D., Mancini F., Driver J., Haggard P. (2012). Linking pain and the body: neural correlates of visually induced analgesia. J. Neurosci. 32 2601–2607. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4031-11.2012
    1. Longo M. R., Schuur F., Kammers M. P., Tsakiris M., Haggard P. (2008). What is embodiment? a psychometric approach. Cognition 107 978–998. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.004
    1. MacIver K., Lloyd D. M., Kelly S., Roberts N., Nurmikko T. (2008). Phantom limb pain, cortical reorganization and the therapeutic effect of mental imagery. Brain 131 2181–2191. 10.1093/brain/awn124
    1. Martini M., Perez-Marcos D., Sanchez-Vives M. V. (2014). Modulation of pain threshold by virtual body ownership. Eur. J. Pain 18 1040–1048. 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2014.00451.x
    1. Mercier C., Sirigu A. (2009). Training with virtual visual feedback to alleviate phantom limb pain. Neurorehabil. Neural. Repair 23 587–594. 10.1177/1545968308328717
    1. 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:e52400. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052400
    1. Moseley G. L., Olthof N., Venema A., Don S., Wijers M., Gallace A., et al. (2008a). Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 13169–13173. 10.1073/pnas.0803768105
    1. Moseley G. L., Parsons T. J., Spence C. (2008b). Visual distortion of a limb modulates the pain and swelling evoked by movement. Curr. Biol. 18 R1047–R1048. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.09.031
    1. 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. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 34 603–613. 10.3233/RNN-150611
    1. Pozeg P., Palluel E., Ronchi R., Solca M., Al-Khodairy A. W., Jordan X., et al. (2017). Virtual reality improves embodiment and neuropathic pain caused by spinal cord injury. Neurology 89 1894–1903. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004585
    1. Ramachandran V. S., Altschuler E. L. (2009). The use of visual feedback, in particular mirror visual feedback, in restoring brain function. Brain 132 1693–1710. 10.1093/brain/awp135
    1. Ramachandran V. S., Rogers-Ramachandran D., Cobb S. (1995). Touching the phantom limb. Nature 377 489–490. 10.1038/377489a0
    1. Schaefer M., Heinze H. J., Rotte M. (2009). My third arm: shifts in topography of the somatosensory homunculus predict feeling of an artificial supernumerary arm. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30 1413–1420. 10.1002/hbm.20609
    1. Siedlecka M., Klimza A., Lukowska M., Wierzchon M. (2014). Rubber hand illusion reduces discomfort caused by cold stimulus. PLoS One 9:e109909. 10.1371/journal.pone.0109909
    1. Siedlecka M., Spychala N., Lukowska M., Wiercioch K., Wierzchon M. (2018). Rubber hand illusion increases pain caused by electric stimuli. J. Pain 19 35–45. 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.08.005
    1. Solca M., Ronchi R., Bello-Ruiz J., Schmidlin T., Herbelin B., Luthi F., et al. (2018). Heartbeat-enhanced immersive virtual reality to treat complex regional pain syndrome. Neurology 91 e479–e489. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005905
    1. Valeriani M., Betti V., Le Pera D., De Armas L., Miliucci R., Restuccia D., et al. (2008). Seeing the pain of others while being in pain: a laser-evoked potentials study. Neuroimage 40 1419–1428. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.056
    1. Younger J., Aron A., Parke S., Chatterjee N., Mackey S. (2010). Viewing pictures of a romantic partner reduces experimental pain: involvement of neural reward systems. PLoS One 5:e13309. 10.1371/journal.pone.0013309

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren