Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Scandinavian Journal of Pain

Official Journal of the Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain

Editor-in-Chief: Breivik, Harald


CiteScore 2018: 0.85

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.494
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.427

Online
ISSN
1877-8879
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 11, Issue 1

Issues

A preliminary investigation into psychophysiological effects of threatening a perceptually embodied rubber hand in healthy human participants

I. Johnson Mark
  • Corresponding author
  • Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, Leeds LSI 3HE, United Kingdom
  • Leeds Pallium Research Group, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds United Kingdom
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Emily Smith
  • Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, Leeds LSI 3HE, United Kingdom
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Yellow Sarah
  • Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, Leeds LSI 3HE, United Kingdom
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ R. Mulvey Matthew
  • Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, Leeds LSI 3HE, United Kingdom
  • Leeds Pallium Research Group, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds United Kingdom
  • Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Charles Thackrah Building, Leeds LS2 9LJ, United Kingdom
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-04-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2015.10.004

Abstract

Background and aims

Threatening a perceptually embodied rubber hand with noxious stimuli has been shown to generate levels of anxiety similar to that experienced when a real hand is threatened. The aim of this study was to investigate skin conductance response, self-reported anxiety and the incidence, type and location of sensations when a perceptually embodied rubber hand was exposed to threatening and non-threatening stimuli.

Methods

A repeated measures cross-over design was used whereby 20 participants (⊕18 years, 14 females) received a threatening (syringe needle) and non-threatening (soft brush) stimulus to a perceptually embodied rubber hand. Perceptual embodiment was achieved using a soft brush to synchronously stroke the participant’s real hand (out of view) and a rubber hand (in view). Then the investigator approached the rubber hand with a syringe needle (threat) or soft brush (non-threat).

Results

Repeated measures ANOVA found that approaching the perceptually embodied rubber hand with either stimulus produced statistically significant reductions in the rated intensity of response to the following questions (p < 0.01): ‘How strongly does it feel like the rubber hand is yours?’; ‘How strongly does it feel like the rubber hand is part of your body?’; and ‘How strongly does it feel you can move the rubber hand?’. However, there were no statistically significant differences in scores between needle and brush stimuli. Repeated measures ANOVA on skin conductance response found statistically significant effects for experimental Events (baseline; stroking; perceptual embodiment; stimuli approaching rubber hand; stimuli touching rubber hand; p <0.001) but not for Condition (needle versus brush p = 0.964) or experimental Event × Condition interaction (p = 0.160). Ten of the 20 participants (50%) reported that they experienced a sensation arising from the rubber hand when the rubber hand was approached and touched by either the needle and/or brush but these sensations lacked precision in location, timing, and nature.

Conclusion and implications

Our preliminary findings suggest that the increase in arousal in response to stimuli entering the peripersonal space may not be selective for threat. There was tentative evidence that more intense sensations were experienced when a perceptually embodied rubber hand was approached by a threatening stimulus. Our findings provide initial insights and should serve as a catalyst for further research.

Keywords: Perceptual embodiment; Pain; Rubber hand illusion; Skin conductance response

References

  • [1]

    Gentile G, PetkovaVI, Ehrsson HH. Integration of visual and tactile signals from the hand in the human brain: an FMRI study.J Neurophysiol 2011;105:910–22.Google Scholar

  • [2]

    Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE. That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 2004;305:875–7.Google Scholar

  • [3]

    Ehrsson HH, Fagergren A, Ehrsson GO, Forssberg H. Holding an object: neural activity associated with fingertip force adjustments to external perturbations. J Neurophysiol 2007;97:1342–52.Google Scholar

  • [4]

    Ehrsson HH, Holmes NP, Passingham RE. Touching a rubber hand: feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas. J Neurosci 2005;25:10564–73.Google Scholar

  • [5]

    Longo MR, Schuur F, Kammers MP, Tsakiris M, Haggard P. What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition 2008;107:978–98.Google Scholar

  • [6]

    Botvinick M, Cohen J. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 1998;391:756.Google Scholar

  • [7]

    Valenzuela Moguillansky C, O’Regan JK, Petitmengin C. Exploring the subjective experience of the rubber hand illusion. Front Hum Neurosci 2013;7:659.Google Scholar

  • [8]

    Lewis E, Lloyd DM. Embodied experience: a first-person investigation of the rubberh and illusion. Phenomenol CognSci 2010;9:317–39.Google Scholar

  • [9]

    Capelari ED, Uribe C, Brasil-NetoJP. Feeling pain in the rubberhand: integration of visual, proprioceptive, and painful stimuli. Perception 2009;38:92–9.Google Scholar

  • [10]

    Lloyd D, Morrison I, Roberts N. Role for human posterior parietal cortex in visual processing of aversive objects in peripersonal space. J Neurophysiol 2006;95:205–14.Google Scholar

  • [11]

    Ehrsson HH, Wiech K, Weiskopf N, Dolan RJ, Passingham RE. Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is yours elicits a cortical anxiety response. Proc Natl Acad SciUSA 2007;104:9828–33.Google Scholar

  • [12]

    Armel KC, Ramachandran VS. Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc Biol Sci 2003;270:1499–506.Google Scholar

  • [13]

    Hagni K, Eng K, Hepp-Reymond MC, Holper L, Keisker B, Siekierka E, Kiper DC. Observing virtual arms that you imagine are yours increases the galvanic skin response to an unexpected threat. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e3082.Google Scholar

  • [14]

    Lewis E, Lloyd DM, Farrell MJ. The role of the environment in eliciting phantomlike sensations in non-amputees. Front Psychol 2012;3:600.Google Scholar

  • [15]

    Guterstam A, Gentile G, Ehrsson HH. The invisible hand illusion: multisensory integration leads to the embodiment of a discrete volume of empty space. J Cogn Neurosci 2013;25:1078–99.Google Scholar

  • [16]

    Guterstam A, PetkovaVI, Ehrsson HH. The illusion of owning a third arm. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e17208.Google Scholar

  • [17]

    Ma K, Hommel B. The virtual-hand illusion: effects of impact and threat on perceived ownership and affective resonance. Front Psychol 2013;4:604.Google Scholar

  • [18]

    Fitzpatrick TB. The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol 1988;124:869–71.Google Scholar

  • [19]

    Mussap AJ, Salton N. A ‘rubber-hand’ illusion reveals a relationship between perceptual body image and unhealthy body change. J Health Psychol 2006;11:627–39.Google Scholar

  • [20]

    Farmer H, Tajadura-Jimenez A, Tsakiris M. Beyond the colour of my skin: how skin colour affects the sense of body-ownership. Conscious Cogn 2012;21:1242–56.Google Scholar

  • [21]

    Dawson M, Schell A, Filion D. The electrodermal system. In: Cacioppo J, Tassinary L, Berntson G, editors. Handbook of psychophysiology. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 159–81.Google Scholar

  • [22]

    Edelberg R. Electrical properties of the skin. In: Brown CC, editor. Methods in psychophysiology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1967. p. 1–53.Google Scholar

  • [23]

    Braithwaite JJ, Broglia E, Watson DG. Autonomic emotional responses to the induction of the rubber-hand illusion in those that report anomalous bodily experiences: evidence for specific psychophysiological components associated with illusory body representations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2014;40:1131–45.Google Scholar

  • [24]

    Ocklenburg S, Ruther N, PeterbursJ, Pinnow M, Gunturkun O. Laterality inthe rubber hand illusion. Laterality 2011;16:174–87.Google Scholar

  • [25]

    Tsakiris M, Haggard P. The rubberh and illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution.J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2005;31:80–91.Google Scholar

  • [26]

    Moseley GL, Olthof N, Venema A, Don S, Wijers M, Gallace A, Spence C. Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:13169–73.Google Scholar

  • [27]

    Llobera J, Sanchez-Vives MV, Slater M. The relationship between virtual body ownership and temperature sensitivity. J R Soc Interface 2013;10:20130300.Google Scholar

  • [28]

    Barnsley N, McAuley JH, Mohan R, Dey A, Thomas P, Moseley GL. The rubber hand illusion increases histamine reactivity in the real arm. Curr Biol 2011;21:R945–6.Google Scholar

  • [29]

    Tsakiris M, Hesse MD, Boy C, Haggard P, Fink GR. Neural signatures of body ownership: a sensory network for bodily self-consciousness. Cereb Cortex 2007;17:2235–44.Google Scholar

  • [30]

    Rohde M, Di Luca M, Ernst MO. The Rubber Hand Illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e21659.Google Scholar

  • [31]

    Rohde M, Wold A, Karnath HO, Ernst MO. The human touch: skin temperature during the rubber hand illusion in manual and automated stroking procedures. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e80688.Google Scholar

  • [32]

    Makin TR, Holmes NP, Ehrsson HH. On the other hand: dummy hands and peripersonal space. Behav Brain Res 2008;191:1–10.Google Scholar

  • [33]

    Mohan R, Jensen KB, Petkova VI, Dey A, Barnsley N, Ingvar M, McAuley JH, Moseley GL, Ehrsson HH. No pain relief with the rubber hand illusion. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e52400.Google Scholar

  • [34]

    Hegedus G, Darnai G, Szolcsanyi T, Feldmann A, Janszky J, Kallai J. The rubber hand illusion increases heat pain threshold. EurJ Pain 2014;18:1173–81.Google Scholar

  • [35]

    Hansel A, Lenggenhager B, von Kanel R, Curatolo M, Blanke O. Seeing and identifying with a virtual body decreases pain perception. EurJ Pain 2011;15:874–9.Google Scholar

  • [36]

    Chang DS, Kim YJ, Lee SH, Lee H, Lee IS, Park HJ, Wallraven C, Chae Y. Modifying bodily self-awareness during acupuncture needle stimulation using the rubber hand illusion. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013:849602.Google Scholar

  • [37]

    Moseley GL, Gallace A, Spence C. Bodily illusions in health and disease: physiological and clinical perspectives and the concept of a cortical ‘body matrix’. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2012;36:34–46.Google Scholar

  • [38]

    Moseley GL, Flor H. Targeting cortical representations in the treatment of chronic pain: a review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2012;26:646–52.Google Scholar

  • [39]

    Christ O, Reiner M. Perspectives and possible applications of the rubber hand and virtual hand illusion in non-invasive rehabilitation: Technological improvements and their consequences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2014;44: 33–44.Google Scholar

About the article

Tel.:+44 0113 2832600; fax:+44 0113 2833124


Received: 2015-08-28

Revised: 2015-10-05

Accepted: 2015-10-13

Published Online: 2016-04-01

Published in Print: 2016-04-01


Authors contributionsConceived and designed the experiments: MIJ, ES, SY, MRM.Performed the experiments: ES, SY.Analysed the data: MIJ, ES, SY.Wrote the paper: MIJ, ES, SY, MRM.

Conflicts of interest: There are no potential or actual conflicts of interest for any of the authors.


Citation Information: Scandinavian Journal of Pain, Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 1–8, ISSN (Online) 1877-8879, ISSN (Print) 1877-8860, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpain.2015.10.004.

Export Citation

© 2015 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Mark I. Johnson
Medicina, 2019, Volume 55, Number 5, Page 182
[2]

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in