Reachability and the sense of embodiment in amputees using prostheses

Adrienne Gouzien, Fréderique de Vignemont, Amélie Touillet, Noël Martinet, Jozina De Graaf, Nathanaël Jarrassé, Agnès Roby-Brami, Adrienne Gouzien, Fréderique de Vignemont, Amélie Touillet, Noël Martinet, Jozina De Graaf, Nathanaël Jarrassé, Agnès Roby-Brami

Abstract

Amputated patients are hardly satisfied with upper limb prostheses, and tend to favour the use of their contralateral arm to partially compensate their disability. This may seem surprising in light of recent evidences that external objects (rubber hand or tool) can easily be embodied, namely incorporated in the body representation. We investigated both implicit body representations (by evaluating the peripersonal space using a reachability judgement task) and the quality of bodily integration of the patient's prosthesis (assessed via questionnaires). As expected, the patients estimated that they could reach further while wearing their prosthesis, showing an embodiment of their prosthesis in their judgement. Yet, the real reaching space was found to be smaller with their prosthesis than with their healthy limb, showing a large error between reachability judgement and actual capacity. An overestimation was also found on the healthy side (comparatively to healthy subjects) suggesting a bilateral modification of body representation in amputated patients. Finally, a correlation was found between the quality of integration of the prosthesis and the way the body representation changed. This study therefore illustrates the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon of prosthesis integration, which involves its incorporation as a tool, but also various specific subjective aspects.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Maximal reachable distance (MRD) in cm for each condition HS = Healthy Subject, HA = Healthy Arm of Amputated Patient, PA = Prosthetic Arm of Amputated Patient *indicate a significant difference between the two groups of participants with p< 0.05.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) MRD (arrow), RJ (perpendicular line) and error, in cm, in healthy subjects and the healthy and prosthetic arms of the patients. Values indicated are the mean obtained over groups and conditions. (b) Error of RJ as a % of the MRD, in healthy subjects and the healthy and prosthetic limbs of the patients.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Reachability judgement (in cm) for the healthy and prosthetic arms of the patients as a function of the integration score. (B) Reachability judgement error (in%) for the healthy and prosthetic arms of the patients as a function of the integration score. Reachability judgement error of healthy subjects (and its confidence interval) is also shown on the plot. (C) Difference of the reachability judgement error between the healthy and prosthetic arms as a function of the incorporation score, for 11 patients.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Experimental set-up The positions of the targets and associated responses were recorded by a computer.

References

    1. Davidson J. A survey of the satisfaction of upper limb amputees with their prostheses, their lifestyles, and their abilities. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2002;15:62–70. doi: 10.1053/hanthe.2002.v15.01562.
    1. Biddiss E. A.Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2007;31:236–57. doi: 10.1080/03093640600994581.
    1. De Vignemont F. Embodiment, ownership and disownership. Consciousness and cognition. 2011;20(1):82–93. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.004.
    1. Botvinick M, Cohen J. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature. 1998;391:756–756. doi: 10.1038/35784.
    1. Romano D, Caffa E, Hernandez-Arieta A, Brugger P, Maravita A. The robot hand illusion: Inducing proprioceptive drift through visuo-motor congruency. Neuropsychologia. 2015;70:414–420. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.033.
    1. Iriki AT. Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport. 1996;7:2325–2330. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199610020-00010.
    1. Cardinali L, et al. Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Current Biology. 2009;19:R478–R479. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.009.
    1. Garbarini F, et al. When your arm becomes mine: pathological embodiment of alien limbs using tools modulates own body representation. Neuropsychologia. 2015;70:402–413. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.11.008.
    1. Miller LE, Longo MR, Saygin AP. Tool morphology constrains the effects of tool use on body representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2014;40:2143.
    1. Ma K, Hommel B. The role of agency for perceived ownership in the virtual hand illusion. Consciousness and cognition. 2015;36:277–288. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.07.008.
    1. Horgan O, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower-limb amputation: a review. Disability and rehabilitation. 2004;26:837–850. doi: 10.1080/09638280410001708869.
    1. Lundberg M, Hagberg K, Bullington J. My prosthesis as a part of me: a qualitative analysis of living with an osseointegrated prosthetic limb. Prosthetics and orthotics international. 2011;35:207–214. doi: 10.1177/0309364611409795.
    1. McDonnell PM, Scott RN, Dickison J, Theriault RA, Wood B. Do artificial limbs become part of the user? New evidence. Journal of rehabilitation research and development. 1989;26:17–24.
    1. Canzoneri, E., Marzolla, M., Amoresano, A., Verni, G. &Serino, A. Amputation and prosthesis implantation shape body and peripersonal space representations. Scientific reports3 (2013).
    1. Graziano MS, Gross CG. A bimodal map of space: somatosensory receptive fields in the macaque putamen with corresponding visual receptive fields. Experimental Brain Research. 1993;97:96–109. doi: 10.1007/BF00228820.
    1. Brozzoli CG. That’s near my hand! Parietal and premotor coding of hand-centered space contributes to localization and self-attribution of the hand. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2012;32:14573–14582. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2660-12.2012.
    1. Rizzolatti GS. Afferent properties of periarcuate neurons in macaque monkeys.II. Visual responses. Behavioural brain research. 1981;2:147–163. doi: 10.1016/0166-4328(81)90053-X.
    1. Spence C, Pavani F, Driver J. Spatial constraints on visual-tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects. Cognitive, Affective, &Behavioral Neuroscience. 2004;4:148–169. doi: 10.3758/CABN.4.2.148.
    1. Kennett S, Spence C, Driver J. Visuo-tactile links in covert exogenous spatial attention remap across changes in unseen hand posture. Perception &psychophysics. 2002;64:1083–1094. doi: 10.3758/BF03194758.
    1. di Pellegrino G, Làdavas E, Farné A. Seeing where your hands are. Nature. 1997;388:730. doi: 10.1038/41921.
    1. Canzoneri E, Magosso E, Serino A. Dynamic sounds capture the boundaries of peripersonal space representation in humans. PloS one. 2012;7:e44306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044306.
    1. Maravita AS. Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans. Cognition. 2002;83:B25–B34. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00003-3.
    1. Holmes NP, Sanabria D, Calvert GA, Spence C. Tool-use: capturing multisensory spatial attention or extending multisensory peripersonal space? Cortex. 2007;43:469–489. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70471-4.
    1. Bassolino M, Serino A, Ubaldi S, Làdavas E. Everyday use of the computer mouse extends peripersonal space representation. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48:803–811. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.11.009.
    1. Farnè A, Làdavas E. Dynamic size‐change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. Neuroreport. 2000;11:1645–1649. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200006050-00010.
    1. Sposito A, Bolognini N, Vallar G, Maravita A. Extension of perceived arm length following tool-use: clues to plasticity of body metrics. Neuropsychologia. 2012;50:2187–2194. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.05.022.
    1. Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V. The space around us. Science. 1997;277:190–191. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5323.190.
    1. Maravita A, Spence C, Driver J. Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Current biology. 2003;13:R531–R539. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00449-4.
    1. Carello CG. Visually perceiving what is reachable. Ecologicalpsychology. 1989;1:27–54.
    1. Bourgeois, J. Représentations motrices et perception de l’espace péripersonnel (Doctoral dissertation, Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille III) (2002).
    1. Coello YB. Perceiving what is reachable depends on motor representations: evidence from a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. PLoS One. 2008;3:e2862. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002862.
    1. Brozzoli, C. Peripersonal space: a multisensory interface for body-objects interactions (Doctoral dissertation, Université Claude Bernard-Lyon I) (2009).
    1. Bourgeois JF. Costs and benefits of tool-use on the perception of reachable space. Actapsychologica. 2014;148:91–95.
    1. Flor H, et al. Phantom-limb pain as a perceptual correlate of cortical reorganization following arm amputation. Nature. 1995;375:482–484. doi: 10.1038/375482a0.
    1. Knecht S, et al. Reorganizational and perceptional changes after amputation. Brain. 1996;119:1213–1219. doi: 10.1093/brain/119.4.1213.
    1. Werhahn KJ, Mortensen J, Kaelin-Lang A, Boroojerdi B, Cohen LG. Cortical excitability changes induced by deafferentation of the contralateral hemisphere. Brain. 2002;125:1402–1413. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf140.
    1. Werhahn KJ, Mortensen J, Van Boven RW, Zeuner KE, Cohen LG. Enhanced tactile spatial acuity and cortical processing during acute hand deafferentation. Nature Neuroscience. 2002;5:936–938. doi: 10.1038/nn917.
    1. Rochat P. An Account of the Systematic Error in Judging What Is Reachable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1997;23:199–212.
    1. Fischer M. Estimating reachability: Whole-body engagement or postural stability? Human Movement Science. 2000;19:297–318. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9457(00)00016-6.
    1. Carey SL, Highsmith MJ, Maitland ME, Dubey RV. Compensatory movements of transradial prosthesis users during commontasks. ClinicalBiomechanics. 2008;23:1128–1135.
    1. Paysant J, et al. Évaluation clinique et cinématique 3D du membre supérieur après réimplantation de la main. Annales de réadaptation et de médecine physique. 2004;47:119–127. doi: 10.1016/j.annrmp.2003.11.003.
    1. Grumillier C, Martinet N, Paysant J, André JM, Beyaert C. Compensatorymechanisminvolving the hip joint of the intact limbduringgait in unilateraltrans-tibial amputees. Journal of biomechanics. 2008;41:2926–2931. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.07.018.
    1. Roby‐Brami AF. Motor compensation and recovery for reaching in stroke patients. Actaneurologicascandinavica. 2003;107:369–381.
    1. Levin, M. F. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabilitation and neural repair (2008).
    1. Imaizumi S, Asai T, Koyama S. Embodied prosthetic arm stabilizes body posture, while unembodied one perturbs it. Consciousness and Cognition. 2016;45:75–88. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.019.
    1. Atkins DJ, Heard DC, Donovan WH. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics. 1996;8:2–11.
    1. Hosmer, D. W. Jr., Lemeshow, S. & Sturdivant, R. X. Applied logistic regression (Vol. 398). John Wiley & Sons (2013).
    1. Selst MV, Jolicoeur P. A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. The quarterly journal of experimental psychology. 1994;47:631–650. doi: 10.1080/14640749408401131.
    1. Rouder JN, Speckman PL, Sun D, Morey RD, Iverson G. Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2009;16:225–237. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225.
    1. Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O’reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2003;27:191–206. doi: 10.1080/03093640308726682.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere