The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Training With Virtual Visual Feedback to Alleviate Phantom Limb Pain
Abstract
Background. Performing phantom movements with visual virtual feedback, or mirror therapy, is a promising treatment avenue to alleviate phantom limb pain. However the effectiveness of this approach appears to vary from one patient to another. Objective. To assess the individual response to training with visual virtual feedback and to explore factors influencing the response to that approach. Methods. Eight male participants with phantom limb pain (PLP) resulting from either a traumatic upper limb amputation or a brachial plexus avulsion participated in this single case multiple baseline study. Training was performed 2 times per week for 8 weeks where a virtual image of a missing limb performing different movements was presented and the participant was asked to follow the movements with his phantom limb. Results. Patients reported an average 38% decrease in background pain on a visual analog scale (VAS), with 5 patients out of 8 reporting a reduction greater than 30%. This decrease in pain was maintained at 4 weeks postintervention in 4 of the 5 participants. No significant relationship was found between the long-term pain relief and the duration of the deafferentation or with the immediate pain relief during exposure to the feedback. Conclusions. These results support the use of training with virtual feedback to alleviate phantom limb pain. Our observations suggest that between-participant differences in the effectiveness of the treatment might be related more to a difference in the susceptibility to the virtual visual feedback, than to factors related to the lesion, such as the duration of the deafferentation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study
Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (1995) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1995.73.6.2608 · Cited by 2,297
Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors
(1996) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0058 · Cited by 1,246
An Interference Effect of Observed Biological Movement on Action
Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. J. (2003) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/s0960-9822(03)00165-9 · Cited by 844
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1006/brcg.2000.1225 · Cited by 791
Cited by
Moseley, G. L., Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2012) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.013 · Cited by 448
Postamputation pain: epidemiology, mechanisms, and treatment
Cohen, S., & Hsu (2013) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s32299 · Cited by 372
Psychological processing in chronic pain: a neural systems approach
Simons, L. E., Elman, I., & Borsook, D. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.006 · Cited by 359
Wand, B. M., Parkitny, L., O’Connell, N. E., Luomajoki, H., McAuley, J. H., Thacker, M., & Moseley, G. L. (2011) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2010.06.008 · Cited by 351
Matheve, T., Bogaerts, K., & Timmermans, A. (2020) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s12984-020-00688-0 · Cited by 118
Metadata
- Authors
- Mercier, C., & Sirigu, A.
- Venue
- Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-01-26
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 587-594
- ISSN
- 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-9683
- 1552-6844
- OpenAlex
- W2134043657
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 13.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Training With Virtual Visual Feedback to Alleviate Phantom Limb Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1545968308328717
- The paper
- Mercier, C., & Sirigu, A. (2009). Training With Virtual Visual Feedback to Alleviate Phantom Limb Pain. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968308328717
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.