Exploring the Relationships Between Altered Body Perception, Limb Position Sense, and Limb Movement Sense in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain is often accompanied by patient-reported distorted body perception and an altered kinesthesia (referring to the senses of limb position and limb movement), but the association between these deficits is unknown. The objectives of this study were to assess body perception and the senses of limb position and limb movement in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and to test whether these variables are related to each other and to pain intensity. Thirteen patients with upper limb CRPS (mean pain intensity, 4.2 ± 2.4 out of 10) and 13 controls were recruited. Body perception was self-reported with a questionnaire, and the senses of limb position (task 1) and of limb movement (task 2) were assessed with a robotic system combined with a 2D virtual reality display. The results showed altered kinesthesia in the patients with CRPS compared with controls (all P < .05). Moreover, in the CRPS group, greater pain intensity was associated with lower performance on task 2 (r = -.60; P < .05). Although alterations in participants' sense of limb position and limb movement were associated with each other (r = -.70, P < .01), they were not related to the altered body perception (all P > .26). Therefore, the results suggest that kinesthesia and body perception should be considered and evaluated separately in patients with CRPS. PERSPECTIVE: Senses of limb position and movement rely on sensorimotor integration. Both are altered in complex regional pain syndrome. However, they are not related to the subjective perception of the painful limb, and thus they should be assessed separately in rehabilitation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".