Advertisement

Aplasic phantoms and the mirror neuron system: An enactive, developmental perspective

  • Rachel Wood
  • Susan A. J. Stuart
Article

Abstract

Phantom limb experiences demonstrate an unexpected degree of fragility inherent in our self-perceptions. This is perhaps most extreme when congenitally absent limbs are experienced as phantoms. Aplasic phantoms highlight fundamental questions about the physiological bases of self-experience and the ontogeny of a physical, embodied sense of the self. Some of the most intriguing of these questions concern the role of mirror neurons in supporting the development of self–other mappings and hence the emergence of phantom experiences of congenitally absent limbs. In this paper, we will examine the hypothesis that aplasic phantom limb experience is the result of an ontogenetic interplay between body schemas and mirror neuron activity and that this interplay is founded on embedding in a social context. Phantom limb experience has been associated with the persistence of subjective experience of a part of the body after deafferentation through surgical or traumatic removal. We maintain that limited association is inconsistent with the extent to which phantom limb experience is reported by aplasic individuals.

Keywords

Aplasia Phantom limb experience Body schema Enactivism Mirror neuron system Embodiment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Vittorio Gallese, Alessandra Umilta and Ezequiel Di Paolo for helpful discussions on the themes of this paper. RW’s work on this paper was supported by the EU Marie Curie - Research Training Network 035975 “DISCOS - Disorders and coherence of the embodied self”.

References

  1. Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. D. (1998). Rubber hand ‘feels’ what eyes see. Nature, 391, 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brass, M., & Heyes, C. (2005). Imitation: Is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brugger, P., Kollias, S. S., Muri, R. M., Crelier, G., Hepp-Reymond, M.-C., & Regard, M. (2000). Beyond re-membering: Phantom sensations of congenitally absent limbs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(11), 6167–6172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Catmur, H., Gilmeister, H., Bird, G., Liepelt, R., Brass, M., & Heyes, C. (2008). Through the looking glass: Counter-mirror activation following incompatible sensorimotor learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 1208–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Churchland, P. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78(2), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Critchley, M. (1953). Tactile thought, with special reference to the blind. Brain, 76, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Depraz, N., Varela, F., & Vermersch, P. (2003). On becoming aware: Steps to a phenomenological pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Advances in Consciousness Research Series).Google Scholar
  8. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.Google Scholar
  9. de Vignemont, F. (2004). The co-consciousness hypothesis. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91, 176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fadiga, L., & Craighero, L. (2007). On electrophysiological data on mirror neurons and motor representations. In S. Bråten (Ed.), On being moved: From mirror neurons to empathy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallagher, S. (2006) “Perceiving others in action/La perception d’autrui en action”, Fondements cognitifs del’interaction avec autrui, Collége de France (22 February 2006).Google Scholar
  14. Gallagher, S. (2007). Moral agency, self-consciousness, and practical wisdom. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14(5–6), 199–223.Google Scholar
  15. Gallagher, S., & Meltzoff, A. (1996). The earliest sense of self and others: Merleau Ponty and recent developmental studies. Philosophical Psychology, 9(2), 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gallese, V. (2005). ‘Being like me’: Self–other identity, mirror neurons and empathy. In S. Hurley & N. Chater (Eds.), Perspectives on imitation I (pp. 101–118). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gazzola, V., van der Worp, H., Mulder, T., Wicker, B., Rizzolatti, G., & Keysers, K. (2007). Aplasics born without hands mirror the goal of hand actions with their feet. Current Biology, 17(14), 1235–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Georgieff, N., & Jeannerod, M. (1998). Beyond consciousness of external events: A ‘Who’ system for consciousness of action and self-consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 7, 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henry, M. (1963). L’Essence de la manifestation/The essence of manifestation. The Hague: Nijhoff. 1973.Google Scholar
  21. Heyes, C. (2001). Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurley, S. L. (2005). Active perception and perceiving action: The shared circuits model. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jeannerod, M., & Pacherie, E. (2004). Agency, simulation, and self-identification. Mind and Language, 19(2), 113–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keysers, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: A Hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kinsbourne, M., & Lempert, H. (1980). Human Figure representation by blind children. The Journal of General Psychology, 102, 33–37.Google Scholar
  26. Legrand, D. (2006). The bodily self: The sensori-motor roots of pre-reflexive self-consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5, 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melzack, R., Israel, R., Lacroix, R., & Schultz, G. (1997). Phantom limbs in people with congenital deficiency or amputation in early childhood. Brain, 120, 1603–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. New York: The Humanities Press. Trans. Colin Smith, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  29. Metzinger, T. (2003a). Phenomenal transparency and cognitive self-reference. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 2, 353–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Metzinger, T. (2003b). Being no one. The self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Oyama, S. (1985). The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Perrett, D. I., Harries, M. H., Bevan, R., Thomas, S., Benson, P. J., Mistlin, A. J., et al. (1989). Frameworks of analysis for the neural representation of animate objects and actions. Journal of Experimental Biology, 146, 87–113.Google Scholar
  33. Perrett, D. I., Mistlin, A. J., Harries, M. H., & Chitty, A. J. (1990). Understanding the visual appearance and consequence of hand actions. In M. A. Goodale (Ed.), Vision and action: The control of grasping (pp. 163–342). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  34. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Trans. Gattegno & Hodgson.Google Scholar
  35. Poeck, K. (1964). Phantoms following amputation in early childhood and in congenital absence of limbs. Cortex, 1, 269–275.Google Scholar
  36. Price, E. H. (2006). A critical review of congenital phantom limb cases and a developmental theory for the basis of body image. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 310–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saadah, E. S. M., & Melzack, R. (1994). Phantom limb experiences in congenital limb-deficient adults. Cortex, 30, 479–485.Google Scholar
  41. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2003). Kinesthetic memory. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 7, 69–92.Google Scholar
  42. Simion, F., Regolin, L., & Bulf, H. (2008). A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(2), 809–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simmel, M. L. (1966). Developmental aspects of the body scheme. Child Development, 37, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stuart, S. A. J. (2006). “Extended body, extended mind: the self as prosthesis”, in screen consciousness: Mind, cinema and world. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  45. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  46. Thompson, E. (2005). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, 4(4), 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life. Biology: Phenomenology and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2005). The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  50. Von Economo, C. (1929). The cytoarchitectonics of the human cerebral cortex. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wallon, H. (1947) “Les origines de la pensee chez l’enfant”/“The Origins of Thought in the Child”. In The World of Henri Wallon, trans. Michael Vale. Jason Aronson (1984).Google Scholar
  52. Wallon, H. (1965) “L’evolution psychologique de l’enfant”/“The Psychological Development of the Child”. In The World of Henri Wallon, trans. Michael Vale. Jason Aronson (1984).Google Scholar
  53. Weinstein, S., & Sersen, E. A. (1961). Phantoms in cases of congenital absence of limbs. Neurology, 11, 905–911.Google Scholar
  54. Weinstein, S., Sersen, E. A., & Vetter, R. J. (1964). Phantoms and somatic sensation in cases of congenital aplasia. Cortex, 1, 276–290.Google Scholar
  55. Zahavi, D. (2005) Being someone. Psyche, 11/5, 1–20. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/.
  56. Zoia, S., Blason, L., D’Ottavio, G., Bulgheroni, M., Pezzetta, E., Scabar, A., et al. (2007). Evidence of early development of action planning in the human foetus: a kinematic study. Experimental Brain Research, 176, 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Neuroscienze - Sezione di FisiologiaUniversita’ di ParmaParmaItaly
  3. 3.Centre for Computational Neuroscience and RoboticsUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations