| Literature DB >> 25742626 |
Robin Bekrater-Bodmann1, Michael Schredl2, Martin Diers1, Iris Reinhard3, Jens Foell4, Jörg Trojan5, Xaver Fuchs1, Herta Flor1.
Abstract
The experience of post-amputation pain such as phantom limb pain (PLP) and residual limb pain (RLP), is a common consequence of limb amputation, and its presence has negative effects on a person's well-being. The continuity hypothesis of dreams suggests that the presence of such aversive experiences in the waking state should be reflected in dream content, with the recalled body representation reflecting a cognitive proxy of negative impact. In the present study, we epidemiologically assessed the presence of post-amputation pain and other amputation-related information as well as recalled body representation in dreams in a sample of 3,234 unilateral limb amputees. Data on the site and time of amputation, residual limb length, prosthesis use, lifetime prevalence of mental disorders, presence of post-amputation pain, and presence of non-painful phantom phenomena were included in logistic regression analyses using recalled body representation in dreams (impaired, intact, no memory) as dependent variable. The effects of age, sex, and frequency of dream recall were controlled for. About 22% of the subjects indicated that they were not able to remember their body representation in dreams, another 24% of the amputees recalled themselves as always intact, and only a minority of less than 3% recalled themselves as always impaired. Almost 35% of the amputees dreamed of themselves in a mixed fashion. We found that lower-limb amputation as well as the presence of PLP and RLP was positively associated with the recall of an impaired body representation in dreams. The presence of non-painful phantom phenomena, however, had no influence. These results complement previous findings and indicate complex interactions of physical body appearance and mental body representation, probably modulated by distress in the waking state. The findings are discussed against the background of alterations in cognitive processes after amputation and hypotheses suggesting an innate body model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25742626 PMCID: PMC4350998 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119552
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Percentage ranks of the body representation recall in dreams items (n = 2,156).
| Rank | Body representation in dreams | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impaired | Intact | Not remembered | ||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| 00% | 1265 | 58.67 | 630 | 29.22 | 831 | 38.54 |
| 11–10% | 309 | 14.33 | 124 | 5.75 | 152 | 7.05 |
| 211–20% | 158 | 7.33 | 100 | 4.64 | 158 | 7.33 |
| 321–30% | 98 | 4.55 | 98 | 4.55 | 91 | 4.22 |
| 431–40% | 59 | 2.74 | 84 | 3.90 | 70 | 3.25 |
| 541–50% | 90 | 4.17 | 175 | 8.12 | 136 | 6.31 |
| 651–60% | 38 | 1.76 | 74 | 3.43 | 38 | 1.76 |
| 761–70% | 29 | 1.35 | 83 | 3.85 | 42 | 1.95 |
| 871–80% | 35 | 1.62 | 140 | 6.49 | 67 | 3.11 |
| 981–90% | 11 | 0.51 | 83 | 3.85 | 71 | 3.29 |
| 1091–100% | 64 | 2.97 | 565 | 26.21 | 500 | 23.19 |
Dream recall frequency for the entire sample (N = 3,234) and the sub sample with valid responses on the body representation in dream items (n = 2,156).
| dream recall frequency | % of participants | |
|---|---|---|
| entire sample | subsample | |
| Never | 27.71 | --- |
| Less than once a month | 11.38 | 14.89 |
| About once a month | 8.53 | 11.83 |
| Two or three times a month | 11.84 | 16.84 |
| About once a week | 13.64 | 19.06 |
| Several times a week | 18.00 | 24.95 |
| Almost every morning | 8.91 | 12.43 |
Results for ordinal logistic regression analyses of dream recall frequency (given validity of all other item values; n = 3,164).
| Independent variables | Dream recall frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| SRC |
| |
| Age | -.138 | 41.5 |
| Sex+ | .031 | 3.1 |
| Site of amputation++ | .038 | 3.3 |
| Life time prevalence of mental disorders+++ | .057 | 10.5 |
| Residual limb length | -.005 | 0.1 |
| Elapsed time since amputation | .038 | 2.9 |
| Prosthesis use+++ | -.001 | 0.2 |
| Presence of non-painful phantom sensations+++ | .108 | 31.1 |
| Presence of a telescope+++ | .047 | 6.3 |
| Presence of phantom limb pain+++ | .002 | 1.0 |
| Presence of residual limb pain+++ | .049 | 7.8 |
|
| .053 | |
SRC = standardized regression coefficient
+0 = female, 1 = male; ++0 = upper-limb, 1 = lower-limb; +++0 = no, 1 = yes
* p<.05;
** p<.01;
*** p<.001
Percentage of estimates of the body representation in dreams (n = 2,156).
| Category | Mean amount of dreams in % (standard deviation) |
|---|---|
| Impaired body representation | 13.67 (24.53) |
| Intact body representation | 47.72 (40.98) |
| Body representation not remembered | 38.61 (41.37) |
Results for ordinal logistic regression analyses on body representation in dreams (given validity of all other item values; n = 2,112).
| Independent variables | Body integrity in dreams | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impaired | Intact | Not remembered | ||||
| SRC |
| SRC |
| SRC |
| |
| Age | -.131 | 20.6 | .174 | 44.1 | -.148 | 30.7 |
| Sex+ | -.036 | 2.1 | .009 | 0.2 | -.010 | 0.2 |
| Dream recall frequency | .167 | 45.1 | .139 | 41.0 | -.184 | 68.8 |
| Site of amputation++ | .094 | 10.3 | .006 | 0.1 | -.047 | 3.4 |
| Life time prevalence of psychiatric disorders+++ | .045 | 3.9 | -.004 | 0.0 | -.003 | 0.0 |
| Residual limb length | -.059 | 5.2 | -.043 | 3.5 | .068 | 8.7 |
| Elapsed time since amputation | -.005 | 0.0 | -.112 | 17.2 | .105 | 14.3 |
| Prosthesis use+++ | .004 | 0.0 | .039 | 2.5 | -.009 | 0.1 |
| Presence of non-painful phantom sensations+++ | .023 | 0.7 | .011 | 0.2 | -.006 | 0.1 |
| Presence of a telescope+++ | .050 | 4.0 | .007 | 0.1 | .009 | 0.2 |
| Presence of phantom limb pain+++ | .075 | 7.6 | .028 | 1.3 | -.054 | 4.9 |
| Presence of residual limb pain+++ | .109 | 20.2 | -.044 | 4.0 | .02 | 0.8 |
|
| .084 | .052 | .068 | |||
SRC = standardized regression coefficient
+0 = female, 1 = male; ++0 = upper-limb, 1 = lower-limb; +++0 = no, 1 = yes
* p<.01667 (.05 / 3);
** p<.00333 (.01 / 3);
*** p<.00033 (.001 / 3)
p values Bonferroni corrected for multiple testing across the regression analyses