Whose arm is it anyway? An fMRI case study of supernumerary phantom limb
Abstract
Under normal circumstances, information from a number of sources is combined to compute a unitary percept of the body. However, after pathology these influences may be perceived simultaneously, resulting in multiple dissociated conscious representations. In a recent paper, we described subject E.P., a right-handed female stroke patient with a right frontomesial lesion who sporadically experiences a supernumerary 'ghost' left arm that occupies the previous position of the real left arm after a delay of 60-90 s. We used a delayed response paradigm with functional MRI to examine the haemodynamic correlates of E.P.'s illusion. Comparison of periods of time during scanning when the ghost arm was present against when it was not revealed a single cluster (9 voxels, t = 5.11, P < 0.012 corrected for multiple comparisons) located on the right medial wall in the supplementary motor area ('SMA proper'). Our results suggest that areas traditionally classified as part of the motor system can influence the conscious perception of the body. We propose that, as a consequence of her injury, E.P. is aware of the position of the phantom limb in this 'action space' while also continuing to be aware of the true position of her real limb on the basis of afferent somatosensory information.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Plasticity of body representations is constrained by a principle of body constancy: the novel rubber hand is incorporated by functionally suppressing the existing hand, rather than by adding an additional supernumerary hand.
“But it also suggests that plasticity is constrained by a principle of body constancy: the novel rubber hand is incorporated by functionally suppressing the existing hand, rather than by adding an additional 'supernumerary' hand (McGonigle et al., 2002).”
From What is embodiment? A psychometric approach (2008) · cites this paper as McGonigle et al., 2002
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 87
- Authors
- McGonigle, D. J., Hänninen, R., Salenius, S., Hari, R., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Frith, C. D.
- Affiliations
- Wellcome Trust (GB)
- Central Finland Health Care District (FI)
- Corresponding author
- McGonigle, D. J.
- Venue
- Brain
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1265-1274
- ISSN
- 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2156
- OpenAlex
- W1988637305
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 5.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Brain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- Academy of Finland
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- body image, body schema, supplementary motor area, stroke, somatosensory perception, action space
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Arm, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Motor Cortex, Phantom Limb
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review