Plasticity and functional recovery in neurology.

Experiments on patients with phantom limbs suggest that neural connections in the adult human brain are much more malleable than previously assumed. Three weeks after amputation of an arm, sensations from the ipsilateral face are referred to the phantom; this effect is caused by the sensory input from the face skin 'invading' and activating deafferented hand zones in the cortex and thalamus. Many phantom arms are 'paralysed' in a painful position. If a mirror is propped vertically in the sagittal plane and the patient looks at the reflection of his/her normal hand, this reflection appears superimposed on the 'felt' position of the phantom. Remarkably, if the real arm is moved, the phantom is felt to move as well and this sometimes relieves the painful cramps in the phantom. Mirror visual feedback (MVF) has shown promising results with chronic regional pain syndrome and hemiparesis following stroke. These results suggest two reasons for a paradigm shift in neurorehabilitation. First, there appears to be tremendous latent plasticity even in the adult brain. Second, the brain should be thought of, not as a hierarchy of organised autonomous modules, each of which delivers its output to the next level, but as a set of complex interacting networks that are in a state of dynamic equilibrium with the brain's environment. Both principles can be potentially exploited in a clinical context to facilitate recovery of function.

[1]  F. E. Bloom,et al.  Sensory maps in the human brain , 1994, Nature.

[2]  J. Paysant,et al.  Temporary phantom limbs evoked by vestibular caloric stimulation in amputees. , 2001, Neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, and behavioral neurology.

[3]  P. Wall The presence of ineffective synapses and the circumstances which unmask them. , 1977, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[4]  V S Ramachandran,et al.  Noninvasive detection of cerebral plasticity in adult human somatosensory cortex. , 1994, Neuroreport.

[5]  A. J. Harris,et al.  Cortical origin of pathological pain , 1999, The Lancet.

[6]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  The perception of phantom limbs. The D. O. Hebb lecture. , 1998, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  P. Wall,et al.  A controlled pilot study of the utility of mirror visual feedback in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (type 1). , 2003, Rheumatology.

[8]  S L Wolf,et al.  Doing It with Mirrors: A Case Study of a Novel Approach to Neurorehabilitation , 2000, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[9]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  Perceptual correlates of massive cortical reorganization. , 1992, Neuroreport.

[10]  E. Bisiach,et al.  Remission of hemineglect and anosognosia during vestibular stimulation , 1987, Neuropsychologia.

[11]  E. Brodie,et al.  Increased motor control of a phantom leg in humans results from the visual feedback of a virtual leg , 2003, Neuroscience Letters.

[12]  Malcolm MacLachlan,et al.  Mirror treatment of lower limb phantom pain: A case study , 2004, Disability and rehabilitation.

[13]  M. Cynader,et al.  Somatosensory cortical map changes following digit amputation in adult monkeys , 1984, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[14]  Abi Berger,et al.  Phantoms in the brain , 1999, BMJ.

[15]  L. Stone,et al.  Rehabilitation of hemiparesis after stroke with a mirror , 1999, The Lancet.

[16]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  Touching the phantom limb , 1995, Nature.

[17]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  M. Mishkin,et al.  Massive cortical reorganization after sensory deafferentation in adult macaques. , 1991, Science.