Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 233, Issue 6, pp 1761–1771 | Cite as

Anaesthesia changes perceived finger width but not finger length

  • Lee D. WalshEmail author
  • Damon Hoad
  • John C. Rothwell
  • Simon C. Gandevia
  • Patrick Haggard
Research Article

Abstract

The brain needs information about the size of the body to control our interactions with the environment. No receptor signals this information directly; the brain must determine body size from multiple sensory inputs and then store this information. This process is poorly understood, but somatosensory information is thought to play a role. In particular, anaesthetising a body part has been reported to make it feel bigger. Here, we report the first study to measure whether changes in body size following anaesthesia are uniform across dimensions (e.g. width and length). We blocked the digital nerves of ten human subjects with a clinical dose of local anaesthetic (1 % lignocaine) and again in separate sessions with a weaker dose (0.25 % lignocaine) and a saline control. Subjects reported the perceived size of their index finger by selecting templates from a set that varied in size and aspect ratio. We also measured changes in sensory signals that might contribute to the anaesthetic-induced changes using quantitative sensory testing. Subjects perceived their finger to be up to 32 % wider during anaesthesia when compared to during a saline control condition. However, changes in perceived length of the finger were much smaller (<5 %). Previous studies have shown a change in perceived body size with anaesthesia, but have assumed that the aspect ratio is preserved. Our data show that this is not the case. We suggest that nonuniform changes in perceived body size might be due to the brain increasing the body’s perimeter to protect it from further injury.

Keywords

Anaesthesia Hand Body size Body image 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (of Australia), the EU FP7 Project VERE Work Package 1 and the European Research Council Advanced Grant HUMVOL.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alloway KD, Rosenthal P, Burton H (1989) Quantitative measurements of receptive field changes during antagonism of GABAergic transmission in primary somatosensory cortex of cats. Exp Brain Res 78:514–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanke O, Arzy S (2005) The out-of-body experience: disturbed self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. Neuroscientist 11:16–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Calford MB, Tweedale R (1991) Acute changes in cutaneous receptive fields in primary somatosensory cortex after digit denervation in adult flying fox. J Neurophysiol 65:178–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardinal RN, Aitken MRF (2006) ANOVA for the behavioural sciences researcher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  6. Catterall W, Mackie K (1996) Local anesthetics. In: Hardman JGG, Gilman A, Limbird LL (eds) Goodman and Gilman’s the pharmalogical basis of therapeutics, 9th edn. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 331–347Google Scholar
  7. Dykes RW, Craig AD (1998) Control of size and excitability of mechanosensory receptive fields in dorsal column nuclei by homolateral dorsal horn neurons. J Neurophysiol 80:120–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dykes RW, Lamour Y (1988) An electrophysiological laminar analysis of single somatosensory neurons in partially deafferented rat hindlimb granular cortex subsequent to transection of the sciatic nerve. Brain Res 449:1–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrsson HH, Holmes NP, Passingham RE (2005) Touching a rubber hand: feeling of body ownership is associated with activity in multisensory brain areas. J Neurosci 25:10564–10573CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Franchak JM, Adolph KE (2014) Gut estimates: pregnant women adapt to changing possibilities for squeezing through doorways. Atten Percept Psychophys 76:460–472CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Freund H (2003) Somatosensory and motor disturbances in patients with parietal lobe lesions. Adv Neurol 93:179–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuentes CT, Longo MR, Haggard P (2013) Body image distortions in healthy adults. Acta Psychol 144:344–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gandevia SC, Phegan CML (1999) Perceptual distortions of the human body image produced by local anaesthesia, pain and cutaneous stimulation. J Physiol 514:609–616CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gandevia SC, Smith JL, Crawford M, Proske U, Taylor JL (2006) Motor commands contribute to human position sense. J Physiol 571:703–710CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gasser HS, Erlanger J (1929) The role of fiber size in the establishment of a nerve block by pressure or cocaine. Am J Physiol 88:581–591Google Scholar
  16. Inui N, Walsh LD, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC (2011) Dynamic changes in the perceived posture of the hand during ischaemic anaesthesia of the arm. J Physiol 589:5775–5784CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ishak S, Franchak JM, Adolph KE (2014) Perception-action development from infants to adults: perceiving affordances for reaching through openings. J Exp Child Psychol 117:92–105CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching and natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddeley A (eds) Attention and performance IX. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 153–168Google Scholar
  19. Jeannerod M, Michel F, Prablanc C (1984) The control of hand movements in a case of hemianaesthesia following a parietal lesion. Brain 107:899–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis JW (2006) Cortical networks related to human use of tools. Neuroscientist 12:211–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Longo MR, Haggard P (2010) An implicit body representation underlying human position sense. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:11727–11732CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mon-Williams M, Bingham GP (2007) Calibrating reach distance to visual targets. J Exp Psychol Human 33:645–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paqueron X, Leguen M, Rosenthal D, Coriat P, Willer JC, Danziger N (2003) The phenomenology of body image distortions induced by regional anaesthesia. Brain 126:702–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Paqueron X, Gentili ME, Willer JC, Coriat P, Riou B (2004a) Time sequence of sensory changes after upper extremity block: swelling sensation is an early and accurate predictor of success. Anesthesiology 101:162–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Paqueron X, Leguen M, Gentili ME, Riou B, Coriat P, Willer JC (2004b) Influence of sensory and proprioceptive impairment on the development of phantom limb syndrome during regional anesthesia. Anesthesiology 100:979–986CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Proske U, Gandevia SC (2012) The proprioceptive senses: their roles in signalling body shape, body position and movement and muscle force. Physiol Rev 92:1651–1697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schady W, Braune S, Watson S, Torebjörk HE, Schmidt R (1994) Responsiveness of the somatosensory system after nerve injury and amputation in the human hand. Ann Neurol 36:68–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwoebel J, Coslett HB (2005) Evidence for multiple, distinct representations of the human body. J Cogn Neurosci 17:543–553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tanner JM (1962) Growth at adolescence, 2nd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 17:2235–2244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Visser J, Geuze RH, Kalverboer AF (1998) The relationship between physical growth, the level of activity and the development of motor skills in adolescence: differences between children with DCD and controls. Hum Mov Sci 17:573–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walsh LD, Gandevia SC, Taylor JL (2010) Illusory movements of a phantom hand grade with the duration and magnitude of motor commands. J Physiol 588:1269–1280CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Walsh LD, Moseley GL, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC (2011a) Proprioceptive signals contribute to the sense of body ownership. J Physiol 589:3009–3021CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Walsh LD, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC (2011b) Overestimation of force during matching of externally generated forces. J Physiol 589:547–557CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wing AM, Fraser C (1983) The contribution of the thumb to reaching movements. Q J Exp Psychol A 35:297–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lee D. Walsh
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Damon Hoad
    • 3
  • John C. Rothwell
    • 3
  • Simon C. Gandevia
    • 2
  • Patrick Haggard
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive NeuroscienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Neuroscience Research Australia, University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of NeurologyUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations