Faculty Opinions recommendation of Visual responsiveness in sensorimotor cortex is increased following amputation and reduced after mirror therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phantom limb pain (PLP) following amputation, which is experienced by the vast majority of amputees, has been reported to be relieved with daily sessions of mirror therapy.During each session, a mirror is used to view the reflected image of the intact limb moving, providing visual feedback consistent with the movement of the missing/phantom limb.To investigate potential neural correlates of the treatment effect, we measured brain responses in volunteers with unilateral leg amputation using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during a four-week course of mirror therapy.Mirror therapy commenced immediately following baseline scans, which were repeated after approximately two and four week intervals.We focused on responses in the region of sensorimotor cortex corresponding to primary somatosensory and motor representations of the missing leg.At baseline, prior to starting therapy, we found a strong and unexpected response in sensorimotor cortex of amputees to visually presented images of limbs.This response was stronger for images of feet compared to hands and there was no such response in matched controls.Further, this response to visually presented limbs was no longer present at the end of the four week mirror therapy treatment, when perceived phantom limb pain was also reduced.A similar pattern of results was also observed in extrastriate and parietal regions typically responsive to viewing hand actions, but not in regions corresponding to secondary somatosensory cortex.Finally, there was a significant correlation between initial visual responsiveness in sensorimotor cortex and reduction in PLP suggesting a potential marker for predicting efficacy of mirror therapy.Thus, enhanced visual responsiveness in sensorimotor cortex is associated with PLP and modulated over the course of mirror therapy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.402 | 0.166 |
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".