Evidence for distorted mental representation of the hand in osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Some chronic pain states are associated with a distortion of the perceived size or shape of the painful area, and multisensory illusions that disrupt these dimensions can modulate pain in healthy controls and people with painful disorders. Illusory hand resizing has recently been found to relieve pain in hand OA, raising the possibility that the illusion corrects some underlying perceptual disturbance. We evaluated this possibility by measuring perceived hand size in healthy controls and those with painful hand OA before and after illusory hand resizing. The aim was to investigate whether people with painful hand OA have distorted representations of hand size and whether these representations are malleable. We hypothesized that hand OA is associated with a distorted mental representation of the painful hand and that perceived hand size can be modulated via multisensory illusion. METHODS: Twelve volunteers with painful hand OA and 12 healthy age-matched controls performed three tasks (hand stretch, hand shrink and no illusion) in a randomized order then estimated the size of their hand using an adjustable photographic image. RESULTS: Our hypotheses were supported: under normal conditions, perceived hand size was smaller for the OA group than for healthy controls, consistent with a distorted mental representation of the painful hand. Furthermore, illusory stretching increased perceived hand size in both groups, while illusory shrinking decreased perceived hand size in healthy controls but not in the OA group. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that hand OA is associated with a distorted mental representation of the painful hand and are consistent with the idea that the pain relief offered by multisensory illusions may work via normalization of this distortion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".