Advertisement

Neuroethics

pp 1–9 | Cite as

Phantom Sensations: A Neurophenomenological Exploration of Body Memory

  • Thiemo BreyerEmail author
Original Paper
  • 122 Downloads

Abstract

This paper brings neuroscientific experiments into relation with concepts from phenomenological philosophy to investigate phantom sensations from the perspective of embodied subjectivity. Using a mirror device to create intersensory effects in subjects experiencing phantom sensations, one can create illusions aiming at alleviating phantom pain. Neuroplasticity as a general property of the brain and cortical remapping as a specific mechanism underlying the success of this procedure are interpreted with the phenomenological notions of body image, body schema, and body memory. It is argued that a phantom can be understood as an ambiguous unity of body-imagistic neglect and body-schematic remembering. This neurophenomenological approach highlights the significance of the polarity of subjective-objective embodied experience one the one hand, and the spatial and temporal horizons of the emergence of phantoms on the other. Thereby, implicit and explicit forms of remembering, habitual and reflective modes of behavioural and cognitive self-representation and -understanding can be compared according to how the body integrates its various sensations.

Keywords

Phantom limb Phantom pain Kinaesthesis Body memory Body schema Body image 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Oliver Müller and the participants of the conference “Mechanized Brains, Embodied Technologies, Restored Movements” (University of Freiburg, January 20-21, 2017) for interesting discussions and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Sherman, R.A., and C.J. Sherman. 1983. Prevalence and characteristics of chronic phantom limb pain among American veterans. Results of a trial survey. American Journal of Physical Medicine 62 (5): 227–238.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woodhouse, A. 2005. Phantom limb sensation. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology 32: 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nikolajsen, L., and T.S. Jensen. 2001. Phantom limb pain. British Journal of Anaesthesia 87 (1): 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melzack, R. 1989. Phantom limbs, the self and the brain. Canadian Psychology 30 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merzenich, M.M., and J.H. Kaas. 1982. Reorganization of mammalian somatosensory cortex following peripheral nerve injury. Trends in Neurosciences 5: 434–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramachandran, V.S., and S. Blakeslee. 1998. Phantoms in the brain: Probing the mysteries of the human mind. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schott, G.D. 1993. Penfield’s homunculus: A note on cerebral cartography. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 56 (4): 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flor, H., T. Elbert, S. Knecht, C. Wienbruch, C. Pantev, and N. Birbaumer. 1995. Phantom-limb pain as a perceptual correlate of cortical reorganization following arm amputation. Nature 375: 482–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andoh, J., M. Diers, C. Milde, C. Frobel, D. Kleinböhl, and H. Flor. 2017. Neural correlates of evoked phantom limb sensations. Biological Psychology 126: 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Plessner, H. (1980 [1928]). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merleau-Ponty, M. 1964. The philosopher and his shadow. In Signs, ed. R.C. McCleary, 159–181. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wehrle, M. 2013. Medium und Grenze: Der Leib als Kategorie der Intersubjektivität. Phänomenologie und Anthropologie im Dialog. In Grenzen der Empathie. Philosophische, psychologische und anthropologische Perspektiven, ed. T. Breyer, 217–238. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plügge, H. 1967. Der Mensch und sein Leib. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plügge, H. 1970. Vom Spielraum des Leibes. Klinisch-phänomenologische Erwägungen über “Körperschema” und “Phantomglied”. Salzburg: Müller.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramachandran, V.S. 1993. Behavioral and magnetoencephalograhic correlates of plasticity in the adult human brain. PNAS 90: 10413–10420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flor, H., T. Elbert, W. Mühlnickel, C. Pantev, C. Wienbruch, and E. Taub. 1998. Cortical reorganization and phantom phenomena in congenital and traumatic upper-extremity amputees. Experimental Brain Research 119 (2): 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rinofner-Kreidl, S. 2009. Scham und Schuld. Zur Phänomenologie selbstbezüglicher Gefühle. Phänomenologische Forschungen 2009: 137–173.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (Tr. D.A. Landes). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gallagher, S. 2005. How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bromage, P.R., and R. Melzack. 1974. Phantom limbs and body schema. Canadian Anaesthetists Society Journal 21: 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiss, S.A. 1958. The body image as related to phantom sensation: A hypothetical conceptualization of seemingly isolated findings. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 74: 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Auersperg, P.A. 1960. Körperbild und Körperschema. Nervenarzt 31: 76–96.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Joraschky, P., T. Loew, and F. Röhricht, eds. 2009. Körpererleben und Körperbild. Stuttgart: Schattauer.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmitz, H. (1965). Der Leib (= System der Philosophie, Vol. II/1). Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fuchs, T. 2000. Leib, Raum, Person. Entwurf einer phänomenologischen Anthropologie. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jensen, T.S., B. Krebs, J. Nielsen, and P. Rasmussen. 1985. Immediate and long-term phantom limb pain in amputees: Incidence, clinical characteristics and relationship to pre-amputation limb pain. Pain 21 (3): 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Flor, H. 2008. Maladaptive plasticity, memory for pain and phantom limb pain: Review and suggestions for new therapies. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 8 (5): 809–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramachandran, V.S., and W. Hirstein. 1998. The perception of phantom limbs. Brain 121: 1603–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fuchs, T. (2008). Leibgedächtnis und Unbewusstes. Zur Phänomenologie der Selbstverborgenheit des Subjekts. Psycho-Logik. Jahrbuch für Psychotherapie, Philosophie und Kultur 3, 33–50.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Milner, B. 1962. Les troubles de la mémoire accompagnant des lésions hippocampiques bilatérales. In: Physiologie de l’hippocampe. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 257–272.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Summa, M. 2011. Das Leibgedächtnis. Ein Beitrag aus der Phänomenologie Husserls. Husserl Studies 27 (3): 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gallagher, S., and J. Cole. 1995. Body schema and body image in a deafferented subject. Journal of Mind and Behavior 16: 369–390.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tulving, E., D. Schacter, and H.A. Stark. 1982. Priming effects in word-fragment completion are independent on recognition memory. Learning, Memory and Cognition 8: 336–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Squire, L.R. 2004. Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspectives. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82: 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fuchs, T. 2006. Gibt es eine leibliche Persönlichkeitsstruktur? Ein phänomenologisch-psychodynamischer Ansatz. Psychodynamische Psychotherapie 5: 109–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.a.r.t.e.s. Graduate School for the Humanities CologneUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations