https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1317-2368
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Simply inspecting one’s own body can reduce clinical pain and magnification of body parts can increase analgesia. Thus, body perceptions seem to play an important role for analgesia. Conversely, pain may also affect bodily perceptions. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of clinical and/or experimental pain on perceived hand size in fibromyalgia patients (FM) and healthy controls (HC).
Methods
To investigate the effects of chronic and/or acute pain on size perception we compared hand size estimates of 35 HC and 32 FM patients at baseline and during tonic mechanical pain stimuli applied to one ear lobe. Mechanical stimuli were adjusted for each individual pain sensitivity to achieve a rating of 4 ± 1 VAS (0–10) units. Photographs of each subject’s hands were digitally manipulated to produce a monotonic series of 5 images larger and 6 smaller than actual size which were then presented to the participants in ascending and descending order (total number of images: 12).
Results
FM and HC participants’ clinical pain ratings at baseline were 3.3 (3.1) and .3 (.8) VAS units, respectively. At baseline, FM participants selected significantly smaller hand images than HC as representative of their actual size (p < .02). During application of tonic experimental pain, the image size chosen to represent their actual hand size decreased significantly in FM participants and HC (p < .001) but this decrease was not different between groups (p > .05). Hand size estimates of FM participants correlated negatively with their clinical pain ratings (p < .04).
Citation: Staud R, Carpenter R, Godfrey M, Robinson ME (2022) Hand size estimates of fibromyalgia patients are associated with clinical and experimental pain. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270701
Editor: Jane Elizabeth Aspell, Anglia Ruskin University, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: July 23, 2021; Accepted: June 15, 2022; Published: July 25, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Staud et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Relevant data are within the Biostudies repository. The accession number is: S-BSST873 and the URL: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-BSST873.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
In the past, the body size-perception in healthy individuals was thought to be highly accurate, and as such it was used as a standard in early studies to interpret body size misperceptions in ill persons [1]. Subsequent studies, however, called this assumption into question, as evidence in healthy individuals showed systematic distortions of body size estimations. When in previous studies healthy participants were asked to judge the length of different body segments, a pattern of length mis-estimation was identified, suggesting that some body parts including the arms are misperceived as longer compared to others parts like the head and leg. Importantly, a pattern of misperception was found related to a body part’s representation in the primary somatosensory cortex (SI). For example, body parts like the hand, with their large cortical presence in SI, were estimated to be shorter, possibly compensating for their large somatosensory representation [2, 3]. Furthermore, body size estimates seem to be affected by additional factor, including pain [4–9].
Body distortions seem to be particularly relevant for post-amputation pain. After limb amputations approximately 80% of patients experience a body distortion known as phantom limb [10, 11]. The missing limb is often perceived as telescoped and shrunk with the proximal portion of the limb shortened and the more distal portion located near the stump [12]. Such body distortions are often associated with pain and structural remodeling of the central nervous system (CNS) [13], specifically with the reorganization of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1), which seems to correlate with the phantom limb experience. It appears that the perceived size of the phantom limb depends on its topical representation in S1. Such CNS reorganization seems to occur quite rapidly, as deafferentation of a body part appears to promptly reduce the activity of somatotopic region of S1 responding to the body part [14]. Regarding body sized distortions in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, only limited information is available. Most of this information comes from studies of patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) whose clinical presentation is often associated with tissue alterations of the affected painful extremity [15, 16]. Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) also involves changes of S1 representation of the affected limb [17] and is often associated with the perception of marked swelling of the extremity. Although the distortion of body images may be an important part of the presentation of CRPS, the mechanisms involved are not clear.
There is only limited data concerning cortical reorganization in patients with back pain. In some reports patients with back pain report their back as swollen when it is not or report difficulty in feeling their back [18, 19]. Overall, abnormal ongoing input from the periphery seems to be involved in the increased S1 representation of affected body areas [20]. Regardless of contributing factors, a change in intracortical inhibition is probably the common mechanism. This may involve unmasking of latent excitatory synapses, increased density of postsynaptic receptors, changes in conductance of the neuronal membrane, decreased inhibitory inputs, or the removal of inhibition from excitatory inputs [21]. Overall, the associations of acute and chronic pain with perceived body size estimates are only partially understood.
Different from most other chronic pain disorders, fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) is characterized by widespread pain, fatigue, insomnia, and polysymptomatic distress [22]. Most FM patients report painful body areas in the neck, shoulders, and low back and the number of their pain areas correlates with clinical pain [23, 24]. Because no specific peripheral tissue abnormalities have been detected in FM that could explain patients’ symptoms, CNS abnormalities, including dysfunctional pain modulation, have been implicated as FM mechanisms [25, 26]. However, additional factors that contribute to FM pathogenesis, need to be considered. Up to 70% of FM patients complain of unspecific distortions of their extremities, mostly their hands [27, 28]. Despite extensive laboratory testing and x-ray examinations, self-reported hand distortions of FM patients most often remain unexplained [29, 30]. In addition, FM patients report many symptoms, including poor balance and frequent falls which may indicate disturbed sensorimotor function and altered body perception [29, 30]. In addition, FM patients seem to perceive their total body size as altered during exacerbations of pain [31], suggesting a relationship between distortions of their body and pain. Using the Body Image Scale [32], a possible relationship between poor body image and severity of clinical FM pain has been previously reported [33].
Research on perceptual distortions is important, given that one may speculate that body pain might contribute to the initiation and maintenance of perceptual alterations and ultimately such knowledge may create better understanding of chronic pain states like FM [34]. Because FM patients frequently report many body parts as distorted together with widespread musculoskeletal pains and soreness [35] that include the extremities, we hypothesized that a) hand size estimates of FM patients would be abnormal at rest compared to normal pain free controls (HC), and that b) the variability of perceived hand size would be related to FM patients’ clinical pain.
Methods
Participants
Participants were recruited from the local community and FM support groups. All participants provided written informed consent to participate in this study. The University of Florida Institutional Review Board approved the procedures, including written informed consent procedures, and protocol for this study and all procedures of the study protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to testing, all participants underwent a clinical examination by the physician investigator (RS) and were excluded from the study if they had significant abnormal physical findings unrelated to FM, specifically neurological abnormalities like peripheral neuropathy. Chronic conditions like hypertension and thyroid disease were permitted if they were well controlled by medical therapy. Patients could have conditions co-morbid with FM, like irritable bowel syndrome, chronic headaches, or temporo-mandibular disorder. All participants were asked prior to the study procedures whether they perceived their hand size as abnormal.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria for participants were 1) adults over the age of 18; 2) the ability to give informed consent; and 3) HC participants had to be healthy; FM patients had to fulfill the 1990 American College of Rheumatology Criteria for FM including wide-spread pain [36]. 4) Normal neurological examination, 5) normal or corrected-to-normal eyesight.
Exclusion criteria were 1) a relevant medical condition besides FM; 2) current participation in another research protocol that could interfere or influence the outcome measures of the present study; 3) the inability to give informed consent; 4) a recent non-healed hand injury; 5) chronic pain in hands; 6) current use of analgesic drugs, anxiolytic drugs, anti-depressants, or cough suppressants. All participants taking analgesic drugs or antidepressants before enrollment were asked to complete a wash-out phase (5 half-lives) prior to study entry.
Ratings of experimental and clinical pain
A 15 cm mechanical visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–10) was used for ratings of experimental and clinical pain [37]. This scale is anchored on the left with “no pain at all” and on the right with “the most intense pain imaginable”.
Before experimental pain induction, participants were instructed to rate the experimental pain intensity at the start and end of mechanical stimulation using the VAS.
Digital hand size manipulations
Participants placed their non-dominant hand palms down on a flat surface and digital images of the dorsal aspects of the hand were taken using a digital camera (Powershot A1, Canon.com) mounted on a tripod. All jewelry was removed from the hands before 2 flash photographs of the non-dominant hand were taken resting palm down on a white background. The camera was positioned 19 centimeters above the non-dominant hand. Based on image quality the best image was selected for size manipulations and used in subsequent slide presentations. First, the image was edited using GIMP2.10.4 (Gimp.org) to provide a uniform, white background without any shadows. Second, the images were scaled in 4.3% steps from 74% to 122% of actual hand size (Fig 1). The actual size hand image (100%) was displayed on the monitor and by placing their hand over it each subject verified their hand image as a true match.
A high-resolution photograph of each participant’s hand was computer manipulated to provide images between 75% and 125% of actual size. Twelve hand images were presented to the participants in ascending and descending order on a computer screen at a pre-specified distance while their own hands remained hidden. The participants were asked to identify the image that was identical in size to their own hand.
Using these images, a computer screen presentation was created that contained 4 sets of 12 images. The images were presented in ascending and descending order and the order of presentation of all images was counterbalanced for each individual and the same number of smaller or larger images was displayed. Each image was presented for 3 s. During the presentation all participants were asked to verbally identify the image that most closely matched the size of their own hand.
Experimental design
Hand image presentation.
A) Hand size estimates at baseline. Prior to the presentation of various size hand images, the participants rated their current clinical pain intensity using the VAS. The resolution of the computer screen was set to 1280 by 1024 pixels with 32-bit color quality on a 20-inch computer monitor positioned 23 inches from the seated subject’s forehead with the participant’s hands out of sight under the desk. All participants were told that they would see images of their own hand including images smaller and larger than actual size, but also actual size hand images. Furthermore, these images would be presented in ascending and descending order in 4 sets of 12 and a lab assistant would verbally assign each image an ascending or descending number between 1–12. After each set, each participant was then asked to identify one of the 12 images that most perfectly corresponded to the actual size of their own hand, i.e. if they put their hand on the computer screen, it would be an exact match with the screen image. The participants were also told to treat each set of 12 images like it was a completely different set and that they would be notified whenever a new set was beginning. Four image sets were shown and one image each was selected by every participant. A mean hand size estimate of each subject was obtained from the selected images.
B) Hand size estimates during tonic pain. To find out whether the variability of hand size distortions is associated with afferent input from areas other than the hand, we applied tonic pressure to the earlobe to induce tonic pain. For this purpose, a plastic spring-loaded pressure device with a surface area of 1x.5 cm was placed on the ear lobe corresponding to the non-dominant hand. This area has been found suitable for the induction of pressure pain in human participants [38]. The pressure delivered by the device was adjusted to achieve a target pain rating of 4 ± 1 VAS units. If the initial pain ratings were too high or too low, device pressure was adjusted to achieve the desired pain level of 4 ± 1 VAS units. Subsequently, the participants were asked to watch 4 sets of randomized hand image presentations using the same instructions as before. Hand size estimates after each of 4 sets were recorded. Before the ear device was removed, pain ratings were obtained to confirm that pain of 4 ± 1 VAS units had been maintained throughout tonic pain experiment. After the pressure device was removed overall pain intensity ratings were again obtained using the VAS. The participants were asked to keep their hands hidden throughout all slide presentations and to maintain the appropriate distance from the computer screen.
Tender point testing.
As part of the FM classification, nine paired tender points (TP) as defined by the American College of Rheumatology 1990 FM Criteria [36] were assessed in all study participants by a trained investigator using the Wagner dolorimeter. TP are used to assess pressure pain sensitivity on muscles and tendon insertions at the trunk and extremities. The dolorimeter was placed on the examination site and the tissue pressure was gradually increased by 1kg/s until the participants reported it as painful. The participants were instructed to immediately report when the sensation at the examination site changed from pressure to pain by saying “now”. Pressure testing was stopped at that moment and the result were recorded as positive (1) if maximal pressure was ≤ 4 kg. If no pain was elicited at ≥ 4 kg the test results were recorded as negative (0) [36]. The presence of ≥ 11 positive TP (out of 18) is required for the 1990 classification of FM [36].
Data analysis
Statistical analyses were calculated using SPSS 26.0 software (IBM, Inc.). Clinical pain, age, and TPs of participants were analyzed using independent t-tests. Histograms and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were utilized to confirm the normality of the data. A One-Sample t-test were used to test the difference of the hand-size estimates of the participants from the correct estimate. The effects of experimental pain on hand size estimates were tested with mixed ANOVA with group (FM, HC) and condition (baseline, tonic pain) as independent factors and hand-size estimates as dependent factor. For correlational analyses of clinical pain and hand-size estimates, Pearson’s product-moment was used. A threshold of < .05 was considered significant.
Results
We enrolled 35 HC and 32 FM participants into the trial. 1 HC and 2 FM participants were male. The mean (SD) age of HC and FM participants was 47.2 (11.6) (range 20.6–60.2) and 52.8 (9.3) (range 24.1–64.3) years, respectively (p > .05) (Table 1). The mean (SD) number of tender points was significantly different between FM participants [17.1 (1.5)] and HC [3.4 (4.2)] (t = p < .03). All participants reported the size of their non-dominant hand as “normal” (not distorted and not swollen) and without pain at the beginning and end of the study.
Clinical and experimental pain ratings of participants
The mean (SD) clinical pain ratings of HC and FM participants at baseline was .3 (.8) and 3.3 (2.1) VAS units, respectively (t = – 8.1; p < .001). The mean (SD) experimental pain ratings of HC and FM patients at the ear at the start of the experiments was 3.4 (.7) and 3.6 (1.2), respectively (t = .2; p > .05). These pain ratings did not significantly differ from those obtained at the end of the experiment in HC [3.5 (1.5)] and FM participants [3.7 (1.9)] (t = 2.0; p > .05).
Matching hand images at baseline and during experimental pain
Prior to the experiments none of the participants reported abnormal perception of their hand size. Of the 12 digitized hand images of different sizes shown to the participants, image 7 was the one displaying the accurate hand size. Thus, image numbers < 7 represented smaller than actual hand images, whereas image numbers >7 corresponded to larger than actual hand images. After reviewing 4 sets of images while seated in a chair, the mean matched image (SD) selected by HC and FM participants as representative of their actual hand size was 7.4 (1.6) and 6.3 (1.6), respectively (Fig 2). This difference from their true size was statistically significant for FM subject (t = -2.3; p = .03) but not for HC (t = 2.0; p > .05), indicating that FM subject significantly underestimated their hands size by 8.9% whereas HC did not. During tonic pressure pain at the ear lobes the image number selected by HC and FM participants as representing their actual hand size, decreased to 6.3 (1.9) and 5.7 (1.9), respectively. A mixed ANOVA with hand image as the dependent variable and diagnostic group and condition as independent variables showed significant main effects for condition (F(1,65) = 27.6; p < .001; part eta2 = .30) and diagnostic group (F(1,65) = 1,079.0; p < .05; part eta2 = .06). The interaction effect of condition x diagnostic group, however, was not statistically significant (F(1,65) = 1.2; p > .05; part eta2 = .02). This analysis demonstrated that hand images chosen by FM participants at baseline were significantly smaller compared to HC. Image sizes selected during experimental pain induction by both FM and HC participants were significantly smaller compared to baseline, however, this change did not differ statistically between groups.
While matched hand images of FM participants were significantly smaller than HC at baseline, both groups’ image sizes decreased during application of tonic mechanical pain (p < .001). This change in matched hand images was not significantly different between groups (p > .05).
Correlation of clinical pain with matched hand images of FM participants
Average (SD) matched hand image and clinical pain ratings of FM participants at baseline were 6.4 (1.6) and 3.3 (2.0) VAS, respectively (Fig 3). A Pearson Product moment correlation demonstrated a negative association between matched hand image size and clinical FM pain [r = -.378 (p = .04)], indicating that the perception of decreased hand size is associated with increased overall FM pain.
The perception of decreased hand size was associated with increased clinical FM pain.
Discussion
Our study showed that FM patients significantly underestimated their own hand size at baseline and this effect was correlated with their clinical pain (R2 = .14). In contrast, the hand estimates of HC nearly accurately matched their true hand size at baseline. Application of sensitivity-adjusted tonic mechanical pain stimuli decreased hand size estimates of HC and worsened those of FM patients, suggesting that clinical and experimental pain decrease visual hand size estimates in healthy individuals and FM patients. Importantly, the magnitude of pain related distortions of hand size estimates was similar in HC and FM participants, suggesting that this mechanism is not abnormal in FM patients.
Similar visual distortions of body parts have also been observed in other chronic pain conditions than FM such as low back pain [5], CRPS1 [15], and osteoarthritis [39] and cortical reorganization has been suggested as the basis for such distortions [40]. Such cortical changes seem to involve somatotopic changes of S1 [41] which also seem to occur with regional anesthesia. Previous studies have reported that regional anesthesia is associated with the experience of subjective swelling [42] and results in shrinkage of sensory cortex 1 (S1) representation of the affected area [43]. For example, complete anesthesia of the thumb by digital nerve block significantly increased its perceived size (by approximately 70%) in healthy individuals [43]. Similar effects were noted after application of topical anesthetics to the lips [43], indicating that the perceived size of body parts can change rapidly when afferent input to the central nervous system is altered. Conversely, S1 representation of body areas may increase during clinical and experimental pain and result in decreased size estimates as seen in our study. Furthermore, such cortical reorganization appears to be highly efficient, as the percept of FM and HC participants rapidly changed during application of experimental pain stimuli. Although it appears that body size-perception can change quickly after deafferentation, they do not become erased, even after sensory input to the cerebral cortex is interrupted following amputation or spinal cord transection [44]. Whereas previous research suggests that the experience of chronic pain in a specific body areas is associated with perceptual and sensorimotor disturbances of the affected body part [45, 46], our study of HC and FM patients showed that painful stimulations in one location can result in distortions of the percept of other body areas. Whether this distortion is associated with similar cortical changes than seen in other chronic pain syndromes, is unknown at this time. However, several MRI studies of FM patients demonstrated decreased gray matter of the somatosensory cortices which could be associated with altered body size perception [47, 48]. Overall, pain and anesthesia seem to have opposite effects on body size estimates of human participants and the central nervous system mechanisms underlying these effects seem to involve neural plasticity of cortical areas related to body schemas. Although we did not specifically investigate the neural changes associated with experimental pain, they do appear to be similar in healthy individuals and FM patients. At this time, it is unknown if such cortical changes are similar across most musculoskeletal pain conditions or if they depend on duration and type of each specific pain disorder. Whether the perceived size reduction of FM patients’ hands associated with clinical pain is due to plastic changes of S1 or other brain areas needs to be addressed in a future investigation.
Not all studies, however, have reported the same association between pain and decreased body size estimates in human participants. For example, a study of patients with complex regional pain syndrome 1 (CRPS1) reported that estimates of patients’ affected limb size were not smaller but slightly enlarged (107% of actual size) [15]. Because CRPS1 has been associated with shrinkage of S1 representation of the affected body part [17], it has been speculated that this change increases the visual percept of the affected body area similar to that seen with regional anesthesia [43]. However, the perceived size increase of body areas in CRPS1 patients did not correlate with their clinical pain [15]. It is possible that shrinkage of the S1 representation of the affected body area involves alteration of visual magnitude perception. Interestingly, the perceived size of the affected limb was related to the duration of CRPS1 [15]. Several other studies seemed to indicate that perceived body size may depend not only on pain or anesthesia. For example, one study of HC reported a small but significantly enlarged perception of thumb size during cold stimuli [43] while another study demonstrated that anesthesia of the whole arm created the percept, that it was shortened and closer to the body [44]. A possible explanation for these findings is that the increase in perceived size with anesthesia may be related to rapidly enlarging receptive fields of cortical neurons [49, 50] and driven by increased basal activity of central neurons which normally process sensory input from the anesthetized area [51]. The results of such central changes may be the perceptual increase of the size of a body part. On one hand, it appears that pain related perceived increase in body areas depend on the size of the deafferented body part [52, 53]. On the other hand, when large limb areas become deafferented after amputation, the extremity is frequently perceived as shorter and painful (phantom limb) [44]. This process is gradual and occurs over time and it is possible that the frequently reported chronic pain after amputations is related to the perceived shrinkage of phantom limbs.
It is possible that not only pain but also nociceptive sensitivity may be enhanced by changes in the body-image. A number of investigators have shown that sensitivity to experimental pain is increased when perception of the body part is distorted by visual manipulation [54–56], and clinical disruption of perceptual awareness might have a similar outcome in patients with phantom limbs.
Whether biased visual attention to painful body areas plays an important role for body size distortions in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain is not well understood. However, there is at least some evidence against this assumption from a study of patients with CRPS [57]. In this study the effect of experimental and chronic pain on visual attention of CRPS patients was evaluated. The results showed that unilateral, continuously applied pain stimuli or chronic pain had no or only very limited influence on visual attention.
Limitations
Our study demonstrated robust effects of clinical and tonic experimental pain on perceived hands size but we used nociceptive manipulations only at the ear and not in other locations. Therefore, we cannot generalize our findings as effects of nociception, because distortions of body size-perception during the application of pain stimuli may differ depending on location. Although we tested only hand size estimates of study participants, given the widespread nature of FM pain, it appears possible that clinical and experimental pain impact estimates of other body areas as well. Future studies utilizing manipulations of nociception and analgesia will be necessary to explore the role of afferent input for size distortions of FM patients’ body areas. Furthermore, because we only investigated the effects of pain on body size perception, additional factors, including distractions need to be considered, as they may have influenced our results.
Conclusions
Our study seems indicate that visual body size perception can be altered by clinical and experimental pain. FM patients underestimated the size of their hands at baseline and this effect was significantly correlated with their clinical pain. Application of experimental tonic pain stimuli further increased this effect. In contrast, HC’s estimates of their hands size were without significant distortions at baseline conditions, but during application of sensitivity adjusted pressure pain stimuli, their hand size estimates became significantly smaller. The magnitude of these pain related changes of size estimates was similar in FM and HC participants. Whether these pain related size distortions of HC and FM patients are limited to the hands or also involve other body areas needs to be addressed in future studies.
References
- 1. Bell C, Kirkpatrick SW, Rinn RC. Body image of anorexic, obese, and normal females. J Clin Psychol. 1986;42(3):431–9. Epub 1986/05/01. pmid:3711344.
- 2.
Penfield W, Rasmussen T. The cerebral cortex of man; a clinical study of localization of function: Oxford, Englandf MacMillan; 1950.
- 3. Penfield W, Boldrey E. Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation. Brain. 1937;60(4):389–443.
- 4. Cardini F, Longo MR, Haggard P. Vision of the body modulates somatosensory intracortical inhibition. Cereb Cortex. 2011;21(9):2014–22. Epub 2011/02/03. pmid:21285259.
- 5. Moseley GL. I can’t find it! Distorted body image and tactile dysfunction in patients with chronic back pain. Pain. 2008;140(1):239–43. WOS:000261129500024. pmid:18786763
- 6. Lewis JS, Kersten P, McCabe CS, McPherson KM, Blake DR. Body perception disturbance: A contribution to pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Pain. 2007;133(1–3):111–9. pmid:17509761
- 7. Mancini F, Longo MR, Kammers MP, Haggard P. Visual distortion of body size modulates pain perception. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(3):325–30. Epub 2011/02/10. pmid:21303990.
- 8. Longo MR, Iannetti GD, Mancini F, Driver J, Haggard P. Linking pain and the body: neural correlates of visually induced analgesia. J Neurosci. 2012;32(8):2601–7. Epub 2012/02/24. pmid:22357844; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6621879.
- 9. Lewis JS, Newport R, Taylor G, Smith M, McCabe CS. Visual illusions modulate body perception disturbance and pain in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A randomized trial. Eur J Pain. 2021;25(7):1551–63. Epub 20210410. pmid:33759278.
- 10. Ehde DM, Czerniecki JM, Smith DG, Campbell KM, Edwards WT, Jensen MP, et al. Chronic phantom sensations, phantom pain, residual limb pain, and other regional pain after lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81(8):1039–44. Epub 2000/08/16. pmid:10943752.
- 11. Penn-Barwell JG. Outcomes in lower limb amputation following trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2011;42(12):1474–9. Epub 2011/08/13. pmid:21831371.
- 12. Sumitani M, Yozu A, Tomioka T, Yamada Y, Miyauchi S. Using the intact hand for objective assessment of phantom hand-perception. Eur J Pain. 2010;14(3):261–5. pmid:19477667
- 13. Flor H, Stolle AM. Learning, brain plasticity and pain—implications for treatment. Nervenheilkunde. 2006;25(6):445–+.
- 14. Rossini PM, Martino G, Narici L, Pasquarelli A, Peresson M, Pizzella V, et al. Short-term brain ’plasticity’ in humans: transient finger representation changes in sensory cortex somatotopy following ischemic anesthesia. Brain Res. 1994;642(1–2):169–77. pmid:8032877
- 15. Moseley GL. Distorted body image in complex regional pain syndrome. Neurology. 2005;65(5):773. Epub 2005/09/15. pmid:16157921.
- 16. Lewis JS, Schweinhardt P. Perceptions of the painful body: The relationship between body perception disturbance, pain and tactile discrimination in complex regional pain syndrome. European Journal of Pain. 2012;16(9):1320–30. WOS:000308401800015. pmid:22407949
- 17. Maihofner C, Handwerker HO, Neundorfer B, Birklein F. Patterns of cortical reorganization in complex regional pain syndrome. Neurology. 2003;61(12):1707–15. Epub 2003/12/25. pmid:14694034.
- 18. Lotze M, Moseley GL. Role of distorted body image in pain. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2007;9:488–96. pmid:18177603
- 19. Flor H, Knost B, Birbaumer N. Processing of pain- and body-related verbal material in chronic pain patients: central and peripheral correlates. Pain. 1997;73(3):413–21. pmid:9469533
- 20. Spitzer M, Bohler P, Weisbrod M, Kischka U. A neural network model of phantom limbs. Biol Cybern. 1995;72(3):197–206. Epub 1995/01/01. pmid:7703296.
- 21. Kaas JH, Florence SL. Mechanisms of reorganization in sensory systems of primates after peripheral nerve injury. Adv Neurol. 1997;73:147–58. Epub 1997/01/01. pmid:8959212.
- 22. Wolfe F, Clauw DJ, Fitzcharles MA, Goldenberg DL, Katz RS, Mease P, et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia and measurement of symptom severity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(5):600–10. Epub 2010/05/13. pmid:20461783.
- 23. Staud R. The role of peripheral input for chronic pain syndromes like fibromyalgia syndrome. J Musculoskelet Pain. 2008;16(1–2):67–74. WOS:000256327000011.
- 24. Staud R, Price DD, Robinson ME, Vierck CJ Jr., Body pain area and pain-related negative affect predict clinical pain intensity in patients with fibromyalgia. J Pain. 2004;5(6):338–43. Epub 2004/09/01. pmid:15336638.
- 25. Staud R, Vierck CJ, Cannon RL, Mauderli AP, Price DD. Abnormal sensitization and temporal summation of second pain (wind-up) in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. Pain. 2001;91(1–2):165–75. Epub 2001/03/10. pmid:11240089.
- 26. O’Brien AT, Deitos A, Trinanes Pego Y, Fregni F, Carrillo-de-la-Pena MT. Defective Endogenous Pain Modulation in Fibromyalgia: A Meta-Analysis of Temporal Summation and Conditioned Pain Modulation Paradigms. J Pain. 2018;19(8):819–36. Epub 2018/02/20. pmid:29454976.
- 27. Wolfe F, Ross K, Anderson J, Russell IJ, Hebert L. The prevalence and characteristics of fibromyalgia in the general population. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38(1):19–28. Epub 1995/01/01. pmid:7818567.
- 28. Ledingham J, Doherty S, Doherty M. Primary fibromyalgia syndrome—an outcome study. Br J Rheumatol. 1993;32(2):139–42. Epub 1993/02/01. pmid:8428227.
- 29. Jones KD, Horak FB, Winters-Stone K, Irvine JM, Bennett RM. Fibromyalgia Is Associated With Impaired Balance and Falls. Jcr-Journal of Clinical Rheumatology. 2009;15(1):16–21. WOS:000262389000005. pmid:19125137
- 30. Meireles SA, Antero DC, Kulczycki MM, Skare TL. Prevalence of falls in fibromyalgia patients. Acta Ortop Bras. 2014;22(3):163–6. Epub 2014/07/26. pmid:25061425; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4108701.
- 31. Valenzuela-Moguillansky C. Pain and Body Awareness An Exploration of the Bodily Experience of Persons Suffering from Fibromyalgia. Constructivist Foundations. 2013;8(3):339–50.
- 32. Jourard SM, Secord PF. Body-cathexis and the ideal female figure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955;50(2):243–6. pmid:14366889
- 33. Akkaya N, Akkaya S, Atalay NS, Balci CS, Sahin F. Relationship between the body image and level of pain, functional status, severity of depression, and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. Clin Rheumatol. 2012;31(6):983–8. Epub 2012/03/08. pmid:22395855.
- 34. Moseley GL, Gallace A, Spencec C. Is mirror therapy all it is cracked up to be? Current evidence and future directions. Pain. 2008;138(1):7–10. pmid:18621484
- 35. Bennett RM, Jones J, Turk DC, Russell IJ, Matallana L. An internet survey of 2,596 people with fibromyalgia. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:27. Epub 2007/03/14. pmid:17349056; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1829161.
- 36. Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, Bennett RM, Bombardier C, Goldenberg DL, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee. Arthritis Rheum. 1990;33(2):160–72. Epub 1990/02/01. pmid:2306288.
- 37. Price DD, Bush FM, Long S, Harkins SW. A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain. 1994;56(2):217–26. Epub 1994/02/01. 8008411. pmid:8008411
- 38. Handwerker HO, Kobal G. Psychophysiology of experimentally induced pain. Physiol Rev. 1993;73(3):639–71. Epub 1993/07/01. pmid:8332641.
- 39. Gilpin HR, Moseley GL, Stanton TR, Newport R. Evidence for distorted mental representation of the hand in osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015;54(4):678–82. Epub 2014/09/24. pmid:25246638; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4372676.
- 40. Flor H, Braun C, Elbert T, Birbaumer N. Extensive reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex in chronic back pain patients. Neurosci Lett. 1997;224(1):5–8. pmid:9132689
- 41. Haggard P, Iannetti GD, Longo MR. Spatial sensory organization and body representation in pain perception. Curr Biol. 2013;23(4):R164–76. Epub 2013/02/23. pmid:23428330.
- 42. Paqueron X, Leguen M, Gentili ME, Riou B, Coriat P, Willer JC. Influence of sensory and proprioceptive impairment on the development of phantom limb syndrome during regional anaesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2004; 100:979–86. pmid:15087637
- 43. Gandevia SC, Phegan CM. Perceptual distortions of the human body image produced by local anaesthesia, pain and cutaneous stimulation. J Physiol. 1999;514(Pt 2):609–16. pmid:9852339
- 44. Melzack R, Bromage PR. Experimental phantom limbs. Exp Neurol. 1973;39(2):261–9. Epub 1973/03/01. pmid:4702820.
- 45. 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(1):34–46. Epub 2011/04/12. pmid:21477616.
- 46. Pleger B, Tegenthoff M, Ragert P, Forster AF, Dinse HR, Schwenkreis P, et al. Sensorimotor retuning [corrected] in complex regional pain syndrome parallels pain reduction. Ann Neurol. 2005;57(3):425–9. Epub 2005/02/26. pmid:15732114.
- 47. Fallon N, Alghamdi J, Chiu Y, Sluming V, Nurmikko T, Stancak A. Structural alterations in brainstem of fibromyalgia syndrome patients correlate with sensitivity to mechanical pressure. Neuroimage Clin. 2013;3:163–70. Epub 2013/11/02. pmid:24179860; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3791285.
- 48. Robinson ME, Craggs JG, Price DD, Perlstein WM, Staud R. Gray matter volumes of pain-related brain areas are decreased in fibromyalgia syndrome. J Pain. 2011;12(4):436–43. Epub 2010/12/15. pmid:21146463; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3070837.
- 49. Calford MB, Tweedale R. Immediate and chronic changes in responses of somatosensory cortex in adult flying-fox after digit amputation. Nature. 1988;332(6163):446–8. Epub 1988/03/31. pmid:3352742
- 50. Calford MB, Tweedale R. Immediate expansion of receptive fields of neurons in area 3b of macaque monkeys after digit denervation. Somatosens Mot Res. 1991;8(3):249–60. Epub 1991/01/01. pmid:1767621.
- 51. Rasmusson DD, Webster HH, Dykes RW. Neuronal response properties within subregions of raccoon somatosensory cortex 1 week after digit amputation. Somatosens Mot Res. 1992;9(4):279–89. Epub 1992/01/01. pmid:1492528.
- 52. Merzenich MM, Kaas JH, Wall J, Nelson RJ, Sur M, Felleman D. Topographic reorganization of somatosensory cortical areas 3b and 1 in adult monkeys following restricted deafferentation. Neuroscience. 1983;8(1):33–55. Epub 1983/01/01. pmid:6835522.
- 53. Li CX, Waters RS, Oladehin A, Johnson EF, McCandlish CA, Dykes RW. Large unresponsive zones appear in cat somatosensory cortex immediately after ulnar nerve cut. Can J Neurol Sci. 1994;21(3):233–47. Epub 1994/08/01. pmid:8000979.
- 54. Osumi M, Imai R, Ueta K, Nakano H, Nobusako S, Morioka S. Factors associated with the modulation of pain by visual distortion of body size. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:137. Epub 2014/04/02. pmid:24688463; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3960978.
- 55. Osumi M, Imai R, Ueta K, Nobusako S, Morioka S. Negative body image associated with changes in the visual body appearance increases pain perception. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107376. Epub 2014/09/12. pmid:25210738; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4161431.
- 56. Giummarra MJ, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Verdejo-Garcia A, Gibson SJ. Feeling the burn: When it looks like it hurts, and belongs to me, it really does hurt more. Conscious Cogn. 2015;36:314–26. Epub 2015/08/02. pmid:26232354.
- 57. Filippopulos FM, Grafenstein J, Straube A, Eggert T. Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) or continuous unilateral distal experimental pain stimulation in healthy subjects does not bias visual attention towards one hemifield. Exp Brain Res. 2015;233(11):3291–9. Epub 2015/08/05. pmid:26238407.