Search

The sense of body ownership, knowledge that parts of our body ‘belong’ to us, is presumably developed using sensory information. Cutaneous signals seem ideal for this and can modify the sense of ownership. For example, an illusion of ownership over an artificial rubber hand can be induced by synchronously stroking both the subject’s hidden hand and a visible artificial hand. Like cutaneous signals, proprioceptive signals (e.g. frommuscle receptors) exclusively signal events occurring in the body, but the influence of proprioceptors on the sense of body ownership is not known. We developed a technique to generate an illusion of ownership over an artificial plastic finger, using movement at the proximal interphalangeal joint as the stimulus. We then examined this illusion in 20 subjects when their index finger was intact and when the cutaneous and joint afferents from the finger had been blocked by local anaesthesia of the digital nerves. Subjects still experienced an illusion of ownership, induced by movement, over the plastic finger when the digital nerves were blocked. This shows that local cutaneous signals are not essential for the illusion and that inputs arising proximally, presumably from receptors in muscles which move the finger, can influence the sense of body ownership. Contrary to other studies, we found no evidence that voluntary movements induce stronger illusions of body ownership than those induced by passive movement. It seems that the congruence of sensory stimuli ismore important to establish body ownership than the presence of multiple sensory signals.

A progressive decline in upper limb function is associated with ageing and disease. In this cross-sectional study we assessed the performance of 367 healthy individuals aged of 20 to 95 years across a battery of upper limb clinical tests, which we have termed the upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA). The upper limb PPA was designed to quantify the performance of the multiple physiological domains important for adequate function in the upper extremities. Included are tests of muscle strength, unilateral movement and dexterity, position sense, skin sensation, bimanual coordination, arm stability, along with a functional task. We report age and gender normative values for each test. Test-retest reliability ranged from good to excellent in all tests (intra-class correlation coefficients from 0.65 to 0.98) with the exception of position sense (0.31). Ten of the thirteen tests revealed differences in performance between males and females, twelve showed a decline in performance with increasing age, and eight discriminated between older people with and without upper limb functional impairment. Furthermore, most tests showed good external validity with respect to age, an upper limb functional test and self-reported function. This profiling approach provides a reference range for clinical groups with upper limb sensory and motor impairments and may assist in identifying undiagnosed deficits in the general population. Furthermore, the tests are sufficiently reliable to detect motor impairments in people with compromised upper limb function and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Previous studies revealed that healthy individuals consistently misjudge the size and shape of their hidden hand during a localisation task. Specifically, they overestimate the width of their hand and underestimate the length of their fingers. This would also imply that the same individuals misjudge the actual location of at least some parts of their hand during the task. Therefore, the primary aim of the current study was to determine whether healthy individuals could accurately locate the actual position of their hand when hidden from view, and whether accuracy depends on the type of localisation task used, the orientation of the hidden hand, and whether the left or right hand is tested. Sixteen healthy right-handed participants performed a hand localisation task that involved both pointing to and verbally indicating the perceived position of landmarks on their hidden hand. Hand position was consistently misjudged as closer to the wrist (proximal bias) and, to a lesser extent, away from the thumb (ulnar bias). The magnitude of these biases depended on the localisation task (pointing vs. verbal), the orientation of the hand (straight vs. rotated), and the hand tested (left vs. right). Furthermore, the proximal location bias increased in size as the duration of the experiment increased, while the magnitude of ulnar bias remained stable through the experiment. Finally, the resultant maps of perceived hand location appear to replicate the previously reported overestimation of hand width and underestimation of finger length. Once again, the magnitude of these distortions is dependent on the task, orientation, and hand tested. These findings underscore the need to control and standardise each component of the hand localisation task in future studies. Refereed/Peer-reviewed