Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cortical responses to the mirror box illusion: a high-resolution EEG study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The mirror box illusion has proven a helpful therapy in pathologies such as phantom limb pain, and although the effect has been suggested to be a result of the interaction between pain, vision, touch, and proprioception, the mechanisms are still unknown. Multichannel (124) brain responses were investigated in healthy men (N = 11) and women (N = 14) during the mirror box illusion. Tactile somatosensory evoked potentials were recorded from the right thumb during two control conditions and two illusions: (control 1) no mirror: looking at the physical right thumb during stimulation, (control 2) no mirror: looking at the physical left thumb during stimulation, (illusion 1) mirror: the illusion that both thumbs were stimulated, and (illusion 2) mirror: the illusion that none of the thumbs were stimulated. In men, a significant medial shift in the y coordinate of the N70 dipole in illusion 2 (P = 0.021) was found when compared with illusion 1. No dipole shift was found for women. Additionally, men showed higher prevalence of P180 cingulate cortex activation during illusion 2 when compared with control 1 and 2 (P = 0.002). During illusion 2, the degree of conformity with the statement “The hand in the mirror feels like my other hand” was negatively correlated with the N70 x coordinate for men and positively correlated with the N70 z coordinate for women. In conclusion, short-term cortical plasticity can be induced by a mismatch between visual input and location of tactile stimulation in men. The present study suggests that gender differences exist in the perception of the mirror box illusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison T, McCarthy G, Wood C (1992) The relationship between human long-latency somatosensory evoked potentials recorded from the cortical surface and from the scalp. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 84:301–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (2003) Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc Biol Sci 270:1499–1506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Badre D, Wagner AD (2004) Selection, integration, and conflict monitoring: assessing the nature and generality of prefrontal cognitive control mechanisms. Neuron 41:473–487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett-Cowan M, Dyde RT, Thompson C, Harris LR (2010) Multisensory determinants of orientation perception: task-specific sex differences. Eur J Neurosci 31:1899–1907

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick MM, Cohen JD, Carter CS (2004) Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends Cogn Sci 8:539–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cadieux ML, Barnett-Cowan M, Shore DI (2010) Crossing the hands is more confusing for females than males. Exp Brain Res 204:431–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casey MB, Brabeck MM (1989) Exceptions to the male advantage on a spatial task: family handedness and college major as factors identifying women who excel. Neuropsychologia 27:689–696

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chan BL, Witt R, Charrow AP, Magee A, Howard R, Pasquina PF, Heilman KM, Tsao JW (2007) Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain. N Engl J Med 357:2206–2207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Franz EA, Packman T (2004) Fooling the brain into thinking it sees both hands moving enhances bimanual spatial coupling. Exp Brain Res 157:174–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gratkowski M, Haueisen J, Arendt-Nielsen L, Chen AC, Zanow F (2006) Time-frequency filtering of MEG signals with matching pursuit. J Physiol Paris 99:47–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gratkowski M, Haueisen J, Arendt-Nielsen L, Cn Chen A, Zanow F (2008) Decomposition of biomedical signals in spatial and time-frequency modes. Methods Inf Med 47:26–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern DF (1996) Sex, brains, hands, and spatial cognition. Dev Rev 16:261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern DF, LaMay ML (2000) The smarter sex: a critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educ Psychol Rev 12:229–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris JA, Arabzadeh E, Moore CA, Clifford CW (2007) Noninformative vision causes adaptive changes in tactile sensitivity. J Neurosci 27:7136–7140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Herlitz A, Rehnman J (2008) Sex differences in episodic memory. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17:52–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herlitz A, Yonker JE (2002) Sex differences in episodic memory: the influence of intelligence. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 24:107–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter JP, Katz J, Davis KD (2003) The effect of tactile and visual sensory inputs on phantom limb awareness. Brain 126:579–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karmarkar A, Lieberman I (2006) Mirror box therapy for complex regional pain syndrome. Anaesthesia 61:412–413

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kennett S, Taylor-Clarke M, Haggard P (2001) Noninformative vision improves the spatial resolution of touch in humans. Curr Biol 11:1188–1191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster JL, Woldorff MG, Parsons LM, Liotti M, Freitas CS, Rainey L, Kochunov PV, Nickerson D, Mikiten SA, Fox PT (2000) Automated Talairach atlas labels for functional brain mapping. Hum Brain Mapp 10:120–131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levy J (1976) Cerebral lateralization and spatial ability. Behav Genet 6:171–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Yao D, Yin G (2009) Spatio-temporal dynamics of visual selective attention identified by a common spatial pattern decomposition method. Brain Res 1282:84–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linn MC, Petersen AC (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 56:1479–1498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes da Silva FH, Wieringa HJ, Peters MJ (1991) Source localization of EEG versus MEG: empirical comparison using visually evoked responses and theoretical considerations. Brain Topogr 4:133–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mallat SG, Zhang Z (1993) Matching pursuit with time-frequency dictionaries. IEEE Trans Signal Proc 41:3397–3415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel CM, Murray MM, Lantz G, Gonzalez S, Spinelli L, Grave de Peralta R (2004) EEG source imaging. Clin Neurophysiol 115:2195–2222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murray CD, Patchick E, Pettifer S, Caillette F, Howard T (2006) Immersive virtual reality as a rehabilitative technology for phantom limb experience: a protocol. Cyberpsychol Behav 9:167–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor YK, McBeath MK (2008) Gender differences in spatial perception of body tilt. Percept Psychophys 70:199–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Niebauer CL, Aselage J, Schutte C (2002) Hemispheric interaction and consciousness: degree of handedness predicts the intensity of a sensory illusion. Laterality 7:85–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nishitani N, Hari R (2000) Temporal dynamics of cortical representation for action. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:913–918

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oostenveld R, Praamstra P (2001) The five percent electrode system for high-resolution EEG and ERP measurements. Clin Neurophysiol 112:713–719

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parameswaran G (1995) Gender difference in horizontality performance before and after training. J Genet Psychol 156:105–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D (1996) Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proc Biol Sci 263:377–386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmjou S, Hausmann M, Gunturkun O (1999) Hemispheric dominance and gender in the perception of an illusion. Neuropsychologia 37:1041–1047

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:594–596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer M, Flor H, Heinze HJ, Rotte M (2007) Morphing the body: illusory feeling of an elongated arm affects somatosensory homunculus. Neuroimage 36:700–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer M, Heinze HJ, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens JA, Stoykov ME (2003) Using motor imagery in the rehabilitation of hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84:1090–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor-Clarke M, Kennett S, Haggard P (2002) Vision modulates somatosensory cortical processing. Curr Biol 12:233–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tsakiris M, Hesse MD, Boy C, Haggard P, Fink GR (2007) Neural signatures of body ownership: a sensory network for bodily self-consciousness. Cereb Cortex 17:2235–2244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viaud-Delmon I, Ivanenko YP, Berthoz A, Jouvent R (1998) Sex, lies and virtual reality. Nat Neurosci 1:15–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vladimir Tichelaar YI, Geertzen JH, Keizer D, Paul van Wilgen C (2007) Mirror box therapy added to cognitive behavioural therapy in three chronic complex regional pain syndrome type I patients: a pilot study. Int J Rehabil Res 30:181–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The European project EU FP7 “SOMAPS” has supported this study. The authors would like to thank the PhD student Xi Li for her help in constructing the mirror box and the tactile stimulator.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Science and Technology, Center for Sensory Motor Interaction, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Frederik Bajers Vej 7A, 9220, Aalborg East, Denmark

    Line Lindhardt Egsgaard, Laura Petrini, Giselle Christoffersen & Lars Arendt-Nielsen

Authors
  1. Line Lindhardt Egsgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Petrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giselle Christoffersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lars Arendt-Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Petrini.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

 

(A) The hand in the mirror is my hand

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(B) The hand in the mirror feels like my other hand

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(C) The stimulations were on one hand (mark which one: RIGHT/LEFT)

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(D) The stimulations were on both hands (mark the dominant: RIGHT/LEFT)

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(E) It felt like I had an extra hand

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(F) It felt like I had lost a hand

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(G) I was less aware of my hidden hand

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(H) I was less aware of my visible hand

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(I) I lost sensation in my hidden hand

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

(J) I lost sensation in my visible hand

Disagree completely

    

Agree completely

1

2

3

4

5

6

Mark the words from the list which describe the experience and the stimulation during the experiment

 

The experience

The stimulation

Weird

Natural

Sore

Dislike

Joyful

Aching

Anxious

Happy

Painful

Awkward

Amused

Awful

Unpleasant

Pleasant

Stinging

Irritating

Calm

Tingling

Confused

Exciting

Itchy

Discomforting

Confident

Jumping

Stressful

Relaxed

Dull

Insecure

Secure

Intense

Any other notes or remarks:

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Egsgaard, L.L., Petrini, L., Christoffersen, G. et al. Cortical responses to the mirror box illusion: a high-resolution EEG study. Exp Brain Res 215, 345–357 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2902-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2902-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation