| Literature DB >> 23690859 |
Dong-Seon Chang1, Yun-Ji Kim, Soon-Ho Lee, Hyejung Lee, In-Seon Lee, Hi-Joon Park, Christian Wallraven, Younbyoung Chae.
Abstract
Background. The rubber hand illusion (RHI) is an experimental paradigm that manipulates important aspects of body self-awareness. Objectives. We were interested in whether modifying bodily self-awareness by manipulation of body ownership and visual expectations using the RHI would change the subjective perception of pain as well as the autonomic response to acupuncture needle stimulation. Methods. Acupuncture needle stimulation was applied to the real hand during the RHI with (experiment 1) or without (experiment 2) visual expectation while measuring concurrent autonomic changes such as the skin conductance response (SCR). Subjective responses such as perception of the RHI and perceived pain were measured by questionnaires. Results. In experiment 1, the amplitude of the increase in SCR was visibly higher during the synchronous session compared with that of the asynchronous session. In experiment 2, the amplitude of the increase of SCR was lower for the synchronous session compared with that for the asynchronous session. Comparing these two experiments, the visual expectation of needle stimulation produced a greater autonomic response to acupuncture stimulation. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the sympathetic response to acupuncture needle stimulation is primarily influenced by visual expectation rather than by modifications of body ownership.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23690859 PMCID: PMC3638628 DOI: 10.1155/2013/849602
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Schematic drawing of the experimental setup illustrating the rubber hand illusion with (experiment 1) and without (experiment 2) the visual expectation when participants received acupuncture stimulation on their real hand. Two small paintbrushes stroked the rubber hand and the participant's hidden real left hand as synchronously as possible under one condition (synchronous condition) and asynchronously under the other (asynchronous condition).
Figure 2The Rubber Hand Illusion Perception Scale. Q1: It seemed as if I were feeling the touch of the paintbrush in the location where I saw the rubber hand touched. Q2: It seemed as though the touch I felt was caused by the paintbrush touching the rubber hand. Q3: I felt as if the rubber hand was my hand. Q4: I felt as if my (real) hand were drifting toward the right (toward the rubber hand). Q5: It seemed as if I had more than one left hand or arm. Q6: It seemed as if the touch I was feeling came from somewhere between my own hand and the rubber hand. Q7: It felt as if my (real) hand were turning “rubbery.” Q8: It appeared (visually) as if the rubber hand were drifting towards the left (towards my hand). Q9: The rubber hand began to resemble my own (real) hand, in terms of shape, skin tone, freckles, or some other visual feature. The first three questions (Q1–Q3) were designed to correspond to the rubber hand illusion. Mean responses to the rubber hand illusion questionnaire statements on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree (−3)” to “strongly agree (+3),” with standard errors. A significant difference was observed between the synchronous and asynchronous brush stroking sessions under the visual expectation (1.8 ± 0.2 versus −0.3 ± 0.3, t = 5.883, P < 0.001, (a)) and no visual expectation conditions (1.8 ± 0.3 versus −0.4 ± 0.3, t = 5.933, P < 0.001, (b)). Values are mean ± standard error.
Figure 3Skin conductance response (SCR) recordings are presented as the mean change in SCR over time. A significant condition ((synchronous or asynchronous session) × (with or without visual expectation condition)) × time effect was observed (F [3,116] = 1.610, P < 0.001).