Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 215, Issue 3–4, pp 345–357 | Cite as

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

  • Line Lindhardt Egsgaard
  • Laura Petrini
  • Giselle Christoffersen
  • Lars Arendt-Nielsen
Research Article

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.

Keywords

Somatosensory evoked potentials Mirror box illusion Cortical plasticity Gender differences Visual illusion 

References

  1. 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 84:301–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (2003) Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc Biol Sci 270:1499–1506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badre D, Wagner AD (2004) Selection, integration, and conflict monitoring: assessing the nature and generality of prefrontal cognitive control mechanisms. Neuron 41:473–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett-Cowan M, Dyde RT, Thompson C, Harris LR (2010) Multisensory determinants of orientation perception: task-specific sex differences. Eur J Neurosci 31:1899–1907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botvinick MM, Cohen JD, Carter CS (2004) Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends Cogn Sci 8:539–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadieux ML, Barnett-Cowan M, Shore DI (2010) Crossing the hands is more confusing for females than males. Exp Brain Res 204:431–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 27:689–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 357:2206–2207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franz EA, Packman T (2004) Fooling the brain into thinking it sees both hands moving enhances bimanual spatial coupling. Exp Brain Res 157:174–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gratkowski M, Haueisen J, Arendt-Nielsen L, Chen AC, Zanow F (2006) Time-frequency filtering of MEG signals with matching pursuit. J Physiol Paris 99:47–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 47:26–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Halpern DF (1996) Sex, brains, hands, and spatial cognition. Dev Rev 16:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halpern DF, LaMay ML (2000) The smarter sex: a critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educ Psychol Rev 12:229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris JA, Arabzadeh E, Moore CA, Clifford CW (2007) Noninformative vision causes adaptive changes in tactile sensitivity. J Neurosci 27:7136–7140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herlitz A, Rehnman J (2008) Sex differences in episodic memory. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herlitz A, Yonker JE (2002) Sex differences in episodic memory: the influence of intelligence. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 24:107–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunter JP, Katz J, Davis KD (2003) The effect of tactile and visual sensory inputs on phantom limb awareness. Brain 126:579–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karmarkar A, Lieberman I (2006) Mirror box therapy for complex regional pain syndrome. Anaesthesia 61:412–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennett S, Taylor-Clarke M, Haggard P (2001) Noninformative vision improves the spatial resolution of touch in humans. Curr Biol 11:1188–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 10:120–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levy J (1976) Cerebral lateralization and spatial ability. Behav Genet 6:171–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li L, Yao D, Yin G (2009) Spatio-temporal dynamics of visual selective attention identified by a common spatial pattern decomposition method. Brain Res 1282:84–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linn MC, Petersen AC (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 56:1479–1498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 4:133–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mallat SG, Zhang Z (1993) Matching pursuit with time-frequency dictionaries. IEEE Trans Signal Proc 41:3397–3415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michel CM, Murray MM, Lantz G, Gonzalez S, Spinelli L, Grave de Peralta R (2004) EEG source imaging. Clin Neurophysiol 115:2195–2222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 9:167–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Naylor YK, McBeath MK (2008) Gender differences in spatial perception of body tilt. Percept Psychophys 70:199–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Niebauer CL, Aselage J, Schutte C (2002) Hemispheric interaction and consciousness: degree of handedness predicts the intensity of a sensory illusion. Laterality 7:85–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nishitani N, Hari R (2000) Temporal dynamics of cortical representation for action. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:913–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oostenveld R, Praamstra P (2001) The five percent electrode system for high-resolution EEG and ERP measurements. Clin Neurophysiol 112:713–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parameswaran G (1995) Gender difference in horizontality performance before and after training. J Genet Psychol 156:105–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D (1996) Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proc Biol Sci 263:377–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rasmjou S, Hausmann M, Gunturkun O (1999) Hemispheric dominance and gender in the perception of an illusion. Neuropsychologia 37:1041–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:594–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schaefer M, Flor H, Heinze HJ, Rotte M (2007) Morphing the body: illusory feeling of an elongated arm affects somatosensory homunculus. Neuroimage 36:700–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 30:1413–1420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevens JA, Stoykov ME (2003) Using motor imagery in the rehabilitation of hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 84:1090–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor-Clarke M, Kennett S, Haggard P (2002) Vision modulates somatosensory cortical processing. Curr Biol 12:233–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 17:2235–2244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Viaud-Delmon I, Ivanenko YP, Berthoz A, Jouvent R (1998) Sex, lies and virtual reality. Nat Neurosci 1:15–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 30:181–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Line Lindhardt Egsgaard
    • 1
  • Laura Petrini
    • 1
  • Giselle Christoffersen
    • 1
  • Lars Arendt-Nielsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Science and Technology, Center for Sensory Motor Interaction, Faculty of MedicineAalborg UniversityAalborg EastDenmark

Personalised recommendations