Dissociation of phantom limb phenomena from stump tactile spatial acuity and sensory thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most amputees experience phantom limb sensations and/or phantom limb pain as well as residual limb (stump) pain that are resistant to treatment. Phantom phenomena are not homogeneous; each patient presents with a unique combination of spontaneous or evoked sensations, pain, and/or awareness. In an effort to understand the underlying mechanisms, postamputation pain has been subclassified based on the perceived sensory qualities reported by the individual. However, little is known about the relationship between subjective phantom phenomena and sensory function of the residual stump. The aim of the present study was to determine if sensory processing, as measured psychophysically, reflected subjective reports of specific qualities of phantom and/or stump sensory phenomena. Twelve individuals who had recently (within 6 months) undergone traumatic unilateral upper extremity amputation participated in the study. Limb temperature, thermal thresholds, tactile sensory thresholds and tactile spatial acuity were compared between the residual limb and the intact limb, and related to patient reports of specific stump and phantom sensory phenomena. All but one subject reported phantom sensations and/or phantom pain. The remaining subject reported only stump pain. Mean skin temperature of the residual limb was significantly lower than that of the intact contralateral limb by approximately 0.9 degrees C in the proximal portion of the stump and 1.7 degrees C at the stump tip. However, the temperature of the stump (compared with the intact limb) did not reflect subjective reports of stump or phantom limb thermal characteristics. Thermal threshold abnormalities differed among patients, and did not suggest any pattern of small fibre loss of function or generalized hyperexcitability. Other than within grafted tissue or near the scar area, skin areas that the patient described as abnormally sensitive or tender to touch were not accompanied by corresponding abnormalities in static tactile thresholds or tactile spatial acuity. Tactile spatial acuity was heightened near the scar area only. The proportion of subjects who had decreased two-point discrimination thresholds at the stump did not differ significantly according to the reporting or non-reporting of dual percepts. Thus, despite a common injury, the sensory abnormalities varied within this cohort of subjects. In addition, psychophysical threshold measures of sensory function did not reflect, in any simple way, subjective phantom phenomena. Therefore, classification of phantom phenomena based on peripheral sensory function may be a misleading step in the search for specific mechanisms underlying postamputation sensory phenomena.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".