Abstract
Fibromyalgia (FM) is characterised by chronic, continuous, widespread pain, often associated with a sense of fatigue, non-restorative sleep and physical exhaustion. Due to the nature of this condition and the absence of other neurological issues potentially able to induce disorders in body representations per se, it represents a perfect model since it provides an opportunity to study the relationship between pain and the bodily self. Corporeal illusions were investigated in 60 participants with or without a diagnosis of FM by means of an ad hoc devised interview. In addition, motor imagery was investigated and illusions relating to body part movements and changes in body size, feelings of alienness, and sensations of body parts not belonging to one’s own body (disownership and somatoparaphrenic-like sensations) were found. Crucially, these symptoms do not correlate with any of the clinical measures of pain or functional deficits. The results showed that motor imagery was also impaired, and the severity of the deficits found correlated with the functional impairment of the participant. This indicates that disorders in body representations and motor imagery are part of the clinical expression of FM. However, while motor imagery seems to be linked to reduced autonomy and functional deficits, bodily illusions are independent and potentially represent a concurrent symptom.
Introduction
Although perceived by individuals as unique and consistent, the sense of self is a complex construct which is built over the course of a person’s life on the basis of affective and social experiences, cognition (e.g., memories) and sensory-motor activity. A component of the sense of self is the bodily self, that is, the contemporaneous experiences of the presence of a body, having that body and also being the same body. In other words, we sense that the body we inhabit is our own body and that we are that body. This experience is taken for granted in daily life and is not something which we pay attention to unless something particular or unexpected happens (e.g., when your arm falls asleep due to the compression of peripheral nerves).
In spite of this apparent stability, the sense of body is extremely plastic and fragile, as shown in several studies on neurological patients with body representation disorders as a consequence of brain damage (; ; ). Furthermore, experiments with healthy participants indicate that even in the absence of a brain lesion, information coming from the body may be delusive and induce corporeal illusions (; ; ; ; ; ; ,; ). These experiments used multisensory integration in order to mislead the brain in its attempt to interpret sensory information which is processed as coming from one’s own body although in fact they come from non-bodily sources. Two examples of this type of experiment are the rubber hand illusion () and the enfacement illusion () in which people have reported the sensation that a rubber hand or another person’s face have become their own hand or face when they received a tactile stimulation that was synchronous (and spatially congruent) with another stimulus which appeared to be administered to the rubber hand or the other person’s face. In particular, temporal synchrony is crucial in both rubber hand (; ) and enfacement illusions (; ).
This supports the idea that sensory information plays a crucial role in bodily self, as shown by studies on deafferented people, in particular individuals suffering from spinal cord injury (SCI; , ,; ) or locked-in-syndrome (), and recently confirmed by the effects of interoceptive modulations on the sense of body (; ; ; ).Thus, representations underlying bodily self are the result of a continuous integration of multiple sources of information. This integration process provides immediate feedback on the current state of the body and is also integrated with higher-order cognitive functions (e.g., spatial perception and memory) in order to obtain a detailed map of the body and its relationship with the environment in terms of action planning and motor imagery. Although authors on the subject agree on this point (namely, that body representations are the complex result of multiple components, see ), the contribution of the individual components still needs to be disambiguated. For example, the potential role of pain involved in the sense of body remains for the most part unknown (see for a review).
From a naïve perspective, one might be led to think that pain has a detrimental effect on body representations. Indeed, painful conditions alter the threshold of sensitivity () and reduce the ability to localise other sensory stimuli (; ). Nevertheless, if chronic pain has been found to be commonly associated with a reduced tactile sensitivity of the affected part (; ), acute pain seems to facilitate the perception of touch (). In addition, in chronic syndromes (i.e., complex regional pain syndrome), pain impacts on the mental imagery of movement, but only when the actions relate to the painful body parts (; ; ). The results of this research indicate a link between pain, body representations and motor imagery.
Furthermore, the results of experimentation with deafferented people suffering from spinal cord injury support the presence of such a link and indicate the possibility of differentiated effects of pain on body representations and motor imagery (; , ; ; ,). In particular, musculoskeletal, neuropathic, and visceral pain all seem to contribute to misperceptions of body parts (e.g., the feeling of having some body parts in a position which is different to the actual position), while the presence of neuropathic pain might have a “protective” effect on body representations, reducing the feeling of illusory movements of body parts (i.e., sensations of motion that are not voluntarily controlled and muscular fatigue after illusiory movements). However, it is worth noting that in spinal cord injured people, pain is not the main, distinctive symptom, since the massive deafferentation and deefferentation which these people suffer from may cause body representation disorders per se.
Fibromyalgia (FM) is a clinical condition that provides an opportunity to study the specific impact of pain on body representations. It is a chronic musculoskeletal condition characterised by widespread pain and evoked pain at tender points (). Other typical symptoms are a sense of fatigue, sleep disorders and non-restorative sleep. Physical exhaustion and cognitive difficulties, in particular involving the individual’s memory, have also been reported. In addition, most patients report a wide range of additional somatic and psychological symptoms, such as rheumatic disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, as well as anxiety and depression (). As a consequence, FM negatively impacts psychological wellbeing, social relationships and work life (; ). In industrially developed countries, up to 5.8% of the population present with a diagnosis of FM (; ; ), with a much higher prevalence in the case of women (8–10:1, female to male ratio). The aetiology is to date unknown but appears to be centred on genetic, environmental and personality contributors ().
There are a number of reasons why FM represents a good model for a study of the effects of pain on body representations. Firstly, it is a chronic condition with symptoms that last over time with a certain degree of stability. Patients typically report continuous pain that they remember accompanying them from childhood or youth (although the diagnosis is more frequently made when the patient is between 40 and 60 years of age; ) and it becomes a constant presence in their life. In terms of the connection discussed above, it appears that this condition extends its effects onto the bodily self, as indicated by previous results of research into chronic pain (; ; ; ). Another crucial feature is that FM is not associated with neurological deficits or specific lesions in the central nervous system that might cause direct modifications in cognitive representations of the body or alterations to sensory-motor systems. This makes it possible to investigate directly whether potential disorders in body and motor representations are a consequence of pain (without other causes) or if they may represent specific, independent aspects of the syndrome. Finally, FM tends to affect young people (in particular women) who are attentive to signals coming from their body and are able to describe these accurately giving detailed reports.
In this study, we capitalised on previous results coming from a specific battery of tests which investigated various different components of body representation (). These were administered to a sample of women, with or without a diagnosis of FM, in order to determine the potential effects of chronic pain on the bodily self. In addition, we analysed the potential relationships between clinical symptoms, body representations and the ability to represent actions (i.e., motor imagery). The effects of personality traits and clinical variables such as the severity of the symptoms, the various different typologies of pain (musculoskeletal, neuropathic, and visceral pain) and the time interval since the onset of symptoms were also considered. The results are potentially useful not only in terms of the comprehension of the various facets of the bodily self, but also with regard to the clinical impact on diagnosis and interventions for FM.
Materials and Methods
Participants
Sixty women participated in the study over a period of one year, 30 with a diagnosis of FM, who were recruited at the Analgesic Therapy Unit, Borgo Roma Hospital, Verona during their periodic medical visits, and 30 healthy controls (C) who were recruited through the friends and contacts of the experimenters. No men were recruited because of the low prevalence of FM in males. The two groups were matched for age [FM: M (SD) = 48.45 (10.92), C: M (SD) = 49.9 (10.22), Mann–Whitney U = 397.5, p = 0.441, r = 0.1) but not standard of education [FM: M (SD) = 12.3 (3.505), C: M (SD) = 14.77 (2.582), U = 269.5, p = 0.005, r = 0.36]. The clinical diagnosis of FM was confirmed or excluded by means of combining the individuals’ scores on the Widespread Pain Index (WPI) and the Symptom Severity Scale (SSS; , ). The WPI is a self-reported pain index resulting from the summary count of the number of painful regions out of the 19 regions considered in the Regional Pain Scale () (score range = 0–19). The SSS is the sum (range 0–12) of the severity scores of three symptoms (i.e., fatigue, waking unrefreshed, and cognitive symptoms, score range for each item = 0–3), along with the sum of the number of other symptoms that might have co-occurred during the previous 6 months (i.e. headaches, pain or cramps in the lower abdomen, and depression, score 0–3) (). Combinations of WPI ≥ 7 and SSS ≥ 5 or WPI ≥ 4 and SSS ≥ 9 were considered as two valid cut-offs for a diagnosis of FM. This meant in fact that, in the FM group, pain was present in at least 4 or 5 regions (with jaw, chest, and abdominal pain not included in the list) and symptoms had been present for at least 3 months. It is to be noted that, following these diagnostical criteria (), the diagnosis of FM is considered to be valid irrespective of other diagnoses and does not exclude the presence of other serious clinical illnesses (, ).
The participants in the control group were recruited through experimenters’ personal contacts and each FM patient was matched with a control of the same age (±5 years). In this group, the presence of FM was excluded by means of the WPI and SSS scores.
Preliminary Clinical Assessment
To investigate in depth the nature of the pain that had been reported by the FM participants, and in particular to ascertain whether they reported musculoskeletal, visceral, or neuropathic pain differently from each other, we analysed the participants’ responses (both FM and C) to a questionnaire with a scale previously devised in our laboratory (). The validation of this scale (higher scores, more severe symptoms) is currently in progress, but preliminary results confirm a high correlation with both the Brief Pain inventory (BFI; ) and the Douleur Neuropathique 4 question scale (; ). For the purposes of the analyses carried out in this case, we have only considered the scores indicated by the participants as reflecting the degree of each typology of pain in the worst moment of pain that they could remember. Details of the characteristics of the various typologies of pain and the frequency of each of these features in the two groups are shown in the Supplementary Material (Supplementary Table 1).
A check for the presence of potential disorders in mood was also carried out by means of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (), a self-administered scale that gives scores separately for anxiety and depression. 14 multiple-choice questions are asked that investigate the frequency (1 = never, 5 = always) with which a specific mood occurs (e.g., “I feel agitated and tense” “I feel in a good mood”).
Finally, in order to consider the impact of pain on daily life activities, the Italian version of the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ; ) was administered. This questionnaire is divided into three parts which focus on the condition of the patient as perceived subjectively during the week before the assessment. The questions refer to: (i) the patient’s ability to perform daily tasks involving the large muscles (e.g., shopping, housework, gardening); (ii) the number of days in the past week that they felt good and the number of days that they missed work because of pain; and (iii) the intensity of symptoms such as pain, fatigue, morning tiredness, stiffness, anxiety, depression, and the ability to do one’s job. The scores for the three parts are then normalised to give a total score ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse conditions (for details, see ).
The scores of the two groups on these scales and other clinical data are reported in Table 1 and confirm the differences between the two groups in all of the measures relating to FM (WPI, SSS, and FIQ) and in all of the three typologies of pain (musculoskeletal, visceral, and neuropathic pain).
TABLE 1
| FM | C | Frequentist test | p | Effect size | |
| WPI | 13.47 (3.87) | 3.233 (2.34) | U = 893 | <0.001*** | r = 0.85 |
| SSS | 9.53 (1.48) | 4.2 (2.5) | U = 883 | <0.001*** | r = 0.83 |
| FIQ | 65.34 (21) | 16.616 (9.47) | U = 877.5 | <0.001*** | r = 0.82 |
| Interval (y) | 12 (range 1–39) | – | – | ||
| Motor activity (%) | 43.33 | 60 | χ2(1) = 1.07 | 0.30 | V = 0.17 |
| Job (%) | 83.33 | 86.67 | χ2(1) = 0.00 | 1 | V = 0.05 |
| musculoskeletal pain | 8.77 (1.5) | 6 (3.21) | U = 706 | <0.001*** | r = 0.5 |
| visceral pain | 7.2 (3.17) | 1.63 (2.91) | U = 778 | <0.001*** | r = 0.66 |
| neuropathic pain | 5.83 (4.32) | 1.83 (3.37) | U = 671.5 | <0.001*** | r = 0.47 |
| HADS Anxiety | 9.33 (3.6) | 9.83 (3.35) | U = 375 | 0.27 | r = 0.14 |
| HADS Depression | 5.47 (3.85) | 4.1 (2.41) | U = 526 | 0.26 | r = 0.15 |
Results of the clinical assessment of the two groups.
FM, mean and standard deviation for the FM group. C, mean and standard deviation for the C group; Frequentist test, the score at the frequentist statistical test used; U, Mann–Whitney non-parametric t-test. Interval, time interval from the appearance of symptoms to the assessment; Y, years; %, the percentage of participants who have a job and who regularly practice motor activity (at least three times per week) are reported; r, rank-biserial effect size (small effect = r < 0.3; moderate effect = r < 0.5; large effect = r ≥ 0.5; ); V, Cramer’s V effect size (moderate = 0.2 < V ≤ 0.6, large V > 0.6; ). ***p < 0.001.
Other information, such as the patient’s work situation (FM = 25 out of 30, C = 26 out of 30; χ2(1) = 0; p = 1; Cramer’s V = 0.05) and whether they regularly do motor activity (at least three times per week, FM = 13 out of 30, C = 18 out of 30; χ2(1) = 1.07; p = 0.30; Cramer’s V = 0.17) were recorded, with no differences in frequency between the groups. Finally, it is noteworthy that the groups did not show any differences relating to anxiety and depression. The presence of correlations between these clinical variables and any symptoms of corporeal illusions or motor imagery deficits was also assessed (see below).
The Evaluation of Body Representation Disorders
The Body Feelings and Illusions questionnaire (BoFI; ) was administered to the two groups of participants. The questionnaire is comprised of 22 questions each of which investigate the presence or absence (score 1–0) of any symptoms related to Body form and integrity (Q1.1–1.13) or any feelings relating to Body part positions or illusory movements (Q2.1–2.8). When a symptom was reported, further questions were asked about the situations in which the feeling occurred and its qualitative characteristics. Based on a Principal Component Analysis carried out in a previous validation of the questionnaire (), the majority of the questions fall into specific components (see Table 2) such as: feelings of Body loss (i.e., sensations of body parts disappearing or missing); Illusory motion (i.e., sensations of motion that are not voluntarily controlled with muscular fatigue after illusionary movements); Body part misperception (i.e., the feeling of having some body parts in a position which is different to the actual position); Aversive feelings (i.e., negative feelings toward a given body part; in the original study this was called Misoplegia to describe symptoms reported by spinal cord injured people who are paralysed in the lower lesioned body parts); Disownership-like feelings (i.e., the feeling that body parts do not belong to the person) and Somatoparaphrenia-like sensations (i.e., the feeling that body parts are “alien” or detached from the body).
TABLE 2
| Body Feelings and Illusions | Which and where? | |
| 1 | Have you ever felt strange sensations in your body? | |
| Body form and integrity | ||
| 1.1. | Does it ever feel like any body parts do not belong to you? (DSO) | |
| 1.2. | Does it ever feel like your arms are not attached to your shoulders? (DSO) | |
| 1.3. | Does it ever feel like your legs are not attached to your hips? (SP) | |
| 1.4. | Do you ever feel like your legs/arms are elsewhere in the room/in space? | |
| 1.5. | Do you ever feel that a part of your body (e.g., your arms or legs) are missing? (BL) | |
| 1.6 | Do you ever feel that a part of your body (e.g., your arms or legs) have disappeared? (BL) | |
| 1.7. | Do you ever feel that your legs have become longer? | |
| 1.8. | Do you ever feel that your arms have become longer? | |
| 1.9 | Do you ever feel any body parts swelling (IM) | |
| 1.10 | Do you ever feel like any parts of your body have become smaller? | |
| 1.11 | Do you ever feel the desire not to have a particular body part? (BL/MP) | |
| 1.12 | Does it ever feel like some body parts are alien or foreign? (SP) | |
| 1.13 | Do you ever feel hate for any body parts? (MP) | |
| Body and body part positions and illusory movements | ||
| 2.1 | Does it ever feel like any parts of your body (e.g., arms or legs) are in a different position with respect to your real posture? (BPM) | |
| 2.2. | Does it ever feel like you are in a different position with respect to your real posture? (BL) | |
| 2.3. | Des it ever feel like your knees and hips are bent when instead they are totally extended? (BPM) | |
| 2.4. | Does it ever feel like your toes are in a strange position, for example curved inwards? (SP) | |
| 2.5. | Does it ever feel like any body parts move involuntarily? (IM) | |
| 2.6. | Do you ever have the feeling that your muscles are moving with subsequent tiredness? (IM) | |
| 2.7 | Does it ever feel like each digit was twisted so that each toe or finger points in a different direction? | |
| 2.8. | Does it ever feel like your fingers or toes are clenched or overlapping one other? (BMP) | |
The body feelings and illusions questionnaire.
Following validation of the scale, each question falls into one of six factors indicated in brackets. DSO, disownership-like sensations; SP, somatoparaphrenia-like sensations; BL, body loss; IM, illlusory movements; MP, aversive feelings (Misoplegia, in the original version); BPM, body part misperceptions; six questions (in light gray, n.1; 1.4; 1.7; 1.8; 1.10; 2.7) do not fall into specific components as the PCA indicates ().
The scores of each component were computed as the sum of the responses to the questions with positive loadings to the component, minus the responses to the questions with negative loadings. Some questions do not fall into any of the components but were, however, administered, even though they were not considered in the statistical analyses (Table 2).
The Assessment of Motor Imagery
Two subscales of the Visual Motor Imagery Questionnaire-2 (; ) were used to assess motor imagery abilities from first and third person perspectives. More specifically, the subscale of External Visual Imagery (VMIQ-EVI) necessitates imaging oneself performing actions from a third person perspective (“as if you were watching yourself from an external position”). In contrast, the first person perspective imagery was assessed by means of the Kinesthetic Imagery scale (VMIQ-KIN) with the participants being asked to “imagine feeling themselves performing the movement.” Thus, the two subscales involve different cognitive processes, specifically visual imagery in the case of the former and simulation of bodily sensations for the latter (; ; ). The vividness of each action that they imagined (12 identical actions in the two subscales) was rated by the participant on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 = perfectly vivid imagined action and 5 = not imagined at all). The sums of the scores were considered as the final scores for the two subscales (maximum score = 60) (Table 3).
TABLE 3
| Kineasthetic (“how well can you imagine feeling yourself doing this movement?”) | Visual (“how well can you see yourself doing this movement from a third-person perspective?”) | |||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Walking | ||||||||||
| Running | ||||||||||
| Kicking a stone | ||||||||||
| Bending to pick up a coin | ||||||||||
| Running upstairs | ||||||||||
| Jumping sideways | ||||||||||
| Throwing a stone into water | ||||||||||
| Kicking a ball in the air | ||||||||||
| Running downhill | ||||||||||
| Riding a bike | ||||||||||
| Swinging on a rope | ||||||||||
| Jumping off a high wall | ||||||||||
The Visual Motor Imagery Questionnaire ().
The 12 items and the two conditions of assessment are shown. 1 = Perfectly clear and vivid as a normal vision; 2 = clear and reasonably vivid; 3 = Moderately clear and vivid; 4 = Vague and dim; 5 = No image at all, you only know that you are thinking of the skill.
Procedure
The participants were recruited during their follow-up visits which included the administration of WPI, SSS, and FIQ. They were informed of the aims of the study and were requested to sign the informed consent form. They were then interviewed in a quiet room in the Anthalgic Therapy Unit (Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Paediatrics and Gynaecology) by two examiners (GP and VM or MS), with one asking the questions and the other transcribing the answers. First, a clinical assessment was carried out using the Verona Pain Scale, HADS and a number of questions regarding motor activity and the participant’s employment situation. These tasks were administered in a counterbalanced order. Subsequently, the BoFI and VMIQ (VMIQ-EVI and VMIQ-KIN) were executed in a counterbalanced order. The whole session lasted from 30 to 45 min, depending on the dialogue that was created between the participant and the examiners and the number of symptoms and details to be recorded.
Analysis of Data
The experimental variables were not parametrically distributed (all Shapiro–Wilk tests p < 0.05), thus, in order to compare the FM and C groups, non-parametric tests were used. When a variable was continuous, the Mann–Whitney test for independent samples was used, using the r rank-biserial correlation as the measure of the effect size. This ranged between 0 and 1 (small effect = r < 0.3; moderate effect = r < 0.5; large effect = r ≥ 0.5; ). When a variable was scored as a frequency, a χ2 test was used with Cramer’s V as effect size (moderate = 0.2 < V ≤ 0.6, large V > 0.6; ). Furthermore, in order to assess any potential association between bodily illusions and clinical variables, a series of correlations were executed separately for the two groups. All of the statistical analyses were executed by means of the R statistical framework ().
Results
Body Representation Disorders
The results of the comparison between the FM and C groups are reported in Table 4. They indicate that in the case of the FM group, feelings of Illusory Motion, Disownership-like sensations and Somatoparaphrenia-like sensations, as well as Aversive feelings are more frequent than in the C group. No differences were recorded for feelings of Body Loss and Body part Misperception. The FM group did not perform as well as the C group in terms of motor imagery, both in the VMIQ-KIN and VMIQ-EVI subscales.
TABLE 4
| FM | C | Test | p | r | Total | |
| Body loss | 0.067 (0.74) | –0.167 (0.461) | U = 531.5 | 0.167 | 0.18 | –0.05 (0.622) |
| Illusory motion | 1.567 (0.971) | 0.667 (0.606) | U = 682 | <0.001 | 0.48 | 1.117 (0.922) |
| Body part Misperception | 0.267 (0.785) | 0.133 (0.434) | U = 490 | 0.483 | 0.09 | 0.2 (0.632) |
| Aversive feelings | 1.233 (0.774) | 0.7 (0.837) | U = 607 | 0.014 | 0.32 | 0.967 (0.843) |
| Disownership | 1.033 (0.809) | 0.133 (0.434) | U = 724.5 | <0.001 | 0.6 | 0.583 (0.787) |
| Somatoparaphrenia | 1 (0.91) | 0.167 (0.461) | U = 686 | <0.001 | 0.52 | 0.583 (0.829) |
| VMIQ—EVI | 40.333 (12.949) | 26.633 (9.775) | U = 707 | <0.001 | 0.49 | 33.483 (13.308) |
| VMIQ—KIN | 41.8 (12.093) | 28.933 (12.706) | U = 701.5 | <0.001 | 0.48 | 35.367 (13.904) |
The comparison of the two groups in the BoFI components and VMIQ questionnaires.
FM = mean and standard deviation of the FM group; C = mean and standard deviation of the C group; Test t = the value of the Mann-Whitney statistical test; p = the p-value, statistically significant differences are in bold; r = the rank-biserial effect size; Total = the overall mean and standard deviation.
A statistical analysis of the responses (details of the frequencies of the responses to individual items are shown in Supplementary Table 2) indicates that, among the questions falling into the category of Illusory motion components, the feeling of illusory muscular work, with a consequent sensation of fatigue (Q2.6) is present in 26.67% of the FM participants, while in the C group, this was only reported by one participant (χ2(1) = 4.71, p = 0.03, Cramer’s V = 0.33). Some FM patients reported this sensation involving the whole body and other that it was localised to their limbs and hands. In the same component category, the feeling that some body parts involuntarily move (Q2.5, legs and arms in particular) was present in 43.33% of the FM participants, while in the C group this was reported by 20% of the participants, who, however, reported feelings of muscular fasciculation rather than limb movements. Even if the results relating to this sensation are not statistically different between the two groups (χ2(1) = 2.77, p = 0.10, Cramer’s V = 0.25), there is a qualitative difference. Indeed, if we remove the feeling of muscular fasciculation from both groups and consider only actual sensations of body part movement, the difference becomes statistically significant (χ2(1) = 7.55, p = 0.006, Cramer’s V = 0.39).
Finally, a sensation of body part swelling (Q1.9) was more frequent in the FM group (87%) than in the C group (43%) (χ2(1) = 10.55, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.45). This sensation specifically involves the hands and feet and sometimes an entire limb. In five patients, sensations of swelling were reported in the abdomen and four participants reported the sensation involving their face. Sensations of swelling were also present in the C group with a number of them claiming that they had experienced this, but not so frequently.
With regard to Disownership-like sensations, the FM participants reported both sensations that certain body parts did not belong to their body (Q1.1, 56.67%) and that their arms were not attached (Q1.2, 46.67%), feelings which were rare or absent in the C group (10 and 3.33%, respectively). In both cases, the differences were statistically significant (χ2(1) = 12.67, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.5; χ2(1) = 12.8, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.5, respectively). These sensations commonly involve the limbs, but one of the FM participants reported this sensation in the head, and two in their whole body. In particular, these seem to occur during stressful or anxious moments, but also when they are half-asleep, tired or at the moment when the pain is exacerbated.
The feeling of one’s legs not being attached (Q1.3, in the Somatoparaphrenia-like sensations component category) was frequent in the FM group (43.33%) but not in the C group (10%; χ2(1) = 12.67, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.5). Specific sensations of alienness of body parts (Q1.12) were present in around a quarter of the FM participants (23%), but were not reported at all by the C participants (0%; χ2(1) = 5.82, p = 0.016, Cramer’s V = 0.36). In this component category, there were also reports of sensations of the toes being in strange positions (Q2.4), as claimed by one third of the FM participants (33%) but only in a few cases in the C group (6.67%; χ2(1) = 5.1, p = 0.024, Cramer’s V = 0.33).
Other frequent symptoms in the FM group referred to a desire not to have a particular body part (Q1.11; FM = 63.33%; C = 40%; χ2(1) = 5.42, p = 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.32) and a feeling of hate toward certain body parts Q1.13; FN = 60%; C = 30%; χ2(1) = 4.31, p = 0.038, Cramer’s V = 0.3). These sensations are mostly felt toward painful body parts and, while in the C group they were limited in number and extremely specific, but the most relevant characteristic was that these painful sensations were constant or almost constant. (the pain sensations felt from people of the C group reporting hate toward the bodily parts were: toothache (three people), pain in the stomach, intestine and the pelvic floor (one person), pain in a buttock and a calf (one person), pain at shoulders and head (one person), pain in the right heel and hip (one person), pain in the left eye (one person); one person also associated pain with the feeling of restless legs during night), in the FM group they involved large areas of the body and sometimes the whole body. It is to be noted that, in the PCA (), Q1.11 (regarding the desire not to have a particular body part) loads negatively in the Body Loss component and positively in the Aversive feeling component (see Table 2).
Within the BoFi-FM, the various components are partially correlated in the FM group, for which Illusory movements correlate with Body Loss (r = 0.43, p < 0.05), Disownership-like sensations (0.46, p < 0.05) and Somatoparaphrenia-like sensations (0.62, p < 0.001). These latter two components also correlate with each other (0.66, p < 0.001) and with Aversive feelings toward body parts (0.49, p < 0.01). In the C group, only Somatoparaphrenic and Disownership-like sensations were correlated (0.57, p < 0.001). The complete results are reported in Supplementary Tables 3A,B.
Effects of the Clinical Variables on Body Representation Disorders
In contrast to our expectations, we did not find any specific correlations between clinical variables (WPI, SSS, pain severity, interval from symptoms onset and diagnosis, and functional deficits at the FIQ) and corporeal illusions in the FM group, but there was an inverse correlation between age and Body loss: –0.5, p < 0.01. In the C group, the severity of pain symptoms (as measured by the SSS) correlated with some components such as Body loss (–0.39, p < 0.05), Illusory movement (0.39, p < 0.05), and Aversive feelings (0.49, p < 0.01). In this latter group, a correlation between standard of education and somatoparaphrenic-like sensations was also found (0.57, p < 0.001).
Motor Imagery
Patients with FM show disorders in motor imagery in both the visual and kinaesthetic conditions as compared to the matched controls. In the FM group, the two subscales correlated with each other and also with the severity of the symptoms as measured by the FIQ (VMIQ-EVI: 0.38, p < 0.05; VMIQ-KIN: 0.42, p < 0.05). A negative correlation was found between the VMIQ-EVI and the duration of the illness (i.e., the interval of time between the first symptom and the assessment, –0.39, p < 0.01), indicating that this capacity deteriorates over time. In the C group, the VMIQ KIN correlated with all the measures of pain and functional deficits (FIQ: 0.44, p < 0.05, SSS: 0.52, p < 0.52), while the VMIQ EVI correlated with WPI (0.36, p < 0.05) and SSS (0.67, p < 0.001).
Correlations Between Clinical Variables
In the FM group, anxiety and depression did not correlate with other clinical variables or with bodily misperceptions and motor imagery, while in the C group anxiety was associated with WPI (0.37, p < 0.05).
Discussion
In the present study, the BoFI questionnaire was used to investigate the presence of spontaneous sensations and misperceptions relating to the body. The main result regards the evidence that was found that bodily self is compromised in FM, although with symptoms that are more specific than in other clinical conditions such as strokes () or deafferentation and deefferentation due to spinal cord injuries (). Indeed, while in these conditions corporeal illusions involve the feeling of the presence of the body itself (), the FM patients did not report sensations of Body loss more frequently than the controls (i.e., sensations of body parts disappearing or missing) or misperception of body parts (i.e., the feeling of having some body parts in a position which is different to the actual position). Corporeal illusions seem to be specifically associated with a sense of strangeness and alienness of the body, in other words, giving a sense of being in their body and having their body. In fact, they reported the impression of illusory motion and disownership or somatoparaphrenic-like sensations, that is, the feelings that body parts do not belong to them or are “alien”. The presence of Aversive feelings (Misoplegia) is consistent with previous data indicating lower levels of acceptance regarding painful body parts ().
A second interesting, unexpected result is the lack of correlations between these bodily sensations and pain. This suggests the possibility that alterations in the bodily self represent a specific feature of the syndrome which is not secondary to other clinical aspects. Although Aversive feelings toward the body were reported, pain and body sensations were independent from mood, in particular from anxiety and depression in the FM group, unlike in the case of the controls for whom the extent of the pain they experienced (as measured by WPI) correlated with the degree of anxiety.
Finally, a reduced capacity with regard to motor imagery was found in the FM group, both when the task was executed from a first person perspective (with an internal simulation of the movement—VMIQ-KIN) and a third person perspective (with the participant imaging as seing themselves in a mirror while performing the action—VMIQ-EV). Motor imagery disorders correlated with functional deficits (FIQ) in both groups. Furthermore, an effect of mood was reported, since in the FM group both of the results of the motor imagery tasks correlated with depression.
Disorders in Body Representations in Fibromyalgia
Body representation may be investigated by means of various methodologies, and in FM a number of different approaches have been used, ranging from interviews and illness narratives (), to scales and questionnaires (; ) and experimental procedures (; , ). In the present study, a specific questionnaire was used to investigate the presence of spontaneous sensations and misperceptions relating to the body. This allowed us to distinguish various different aspects involving corporeal illusions. The hypothesis that these six components are independent of each other was supported by the results from the control group which indicate that they do not correlate with each other, with the exception of Disownership and Somatoparaphrenic-like sensations. In contrast, in the FM group, correlations between Illusory movements and feelings of Body loss, Disownership and Somatoparaphrenic-like sensations were found, and these latter correlated with Aversive responses (Misoplegia).
Phenomena related to sensations of illusory motion, with involuntary motion and consequent muscular fatigue, such as those recorded with the Illusory Motion subscale, previously been reported in patients suffering from neurological disorders (; ). In cases of FM, the most frequent symptom involves sensations of swelling in certain body parts, which is also associated with body size perception. This result confirms previous studies in these patients, showing difficulties in estimating their own body size, with enlarged body size perception and shrinkage of the surrounding space, in particular when pain is exacerbated (). In an experimental study, a body-scaled action anticipation task was used, in which the participants were asked to estimate whether they would be able to pass through apertures of varying widths that simulated doors. The “passability ratio” (i.e., the aperture size for a 50% positive response rate divided by the participant’s shoulder width) was higher for the FM participants, indicating an overestimation of their body size. This correlated positively with pain and functionality, but, as in our results, not with pain intensity ().
A novelty in the present study regards evidence of feelings of detachment, alienness, and a reduced sense of ownership of body parts, such as the feeling that arms or legs are detached from the shoulders or hips or that these do not belong to one’s own body (Body loss, Disownership, and Somatoparaphrenic-like sensations subscales). Sometimes these feelings are present when there is pain, but they often occur in relaxed moments or when patients are resting in bed. Thus, a direct explanation based on the presence of pain cannot be drawn from our data.
Sensory information processing may contribute to these sensations. Distorted localisation of tactile stimulation (administered to painful sites) has been found in FM patients () who report anomalous sensations (e.g., tingling, pins and needles, a feeling of heaviness, and cramps) as if they were emanating from somewhere away from the site being stimulated, sometimes within the same dermatome but often remotely or in another limb. Interoception (i.e., the processing of information coming from inside one’s own body) has also been investigated, with some experimental data indicating a perception of reduced heartbeat in FM patients () and other reports showing no difference with healthy subjects (; ). It is thus plausible that altered information coming from the body contributes to corporeal illusions as an indirect result of neuroplastic processes. Interoception might also have a role in the lack of connection between chronic pain and bodily illusions. Indeed, interoception is an important source for body representations (), that is altered in chronic pain conditions (), in particular in chronic visceral pain ().
However, experimental studies suggest that other cognitive elements contribute, and these are associated more with high order, body representations. For example, FM patients performed significantly worse with respect to controls in a task involving specifying the laterality of a hand (). In this task, the participants look at images of hands (or feet) which are rotated to different degrees (e.g., 0°–90°–180°–270°), and they are asked to decide if the image corresponds with the right or left body part. When the participant activates body representation, the response times increase with the increase in the degree of rotation in the image (i.e., 180°). This indicates that the task is executed by means of a bodily simulation of the position of the body part. When the task is executed with a visual, rather than corporeal, strategy, the response times do not change with the degree of rotation. This is considered to represent an index of disorders in body representation and was recorded in cases of FM, as well as in other clinical conditions (; ; ; ). In line with this, FM patients seem to be more sensitive to the effects of the rubber hand illusion (). When their own hand and a rubber hand are synchronously stroked, the patients’ response is accentuated with respect to the controls, both in terms of the proprioceptive drift and the sense of ownership and motor control over the rubber hand (). Taken together, these results suggest that a feature of the FM syndrome regards the fragility of one’s own body, characterised by instability regarding self-body representations and a greater sensitivity to illusions. Rather than being a consequence of pain, disorders relating to the bodily self might represent a concurrent symptom ().
Neuroimaging studies support this hypothesis. Although in fMRI brain activity during touch is similar in FM patients and controls, patients show differences when they are asked to rate pleasure and pain with deactivation and hyperactivation in the posterior insular contralateral to the stimulated arm, respectively (). Voxel-brain-morphometry analyses also reveal reduced gray matter density in the anterior insula and hippocampus (). Finally, alterations in the connectivity of the insula have been reported in cases of FM, with higher levels of strength with reference to the connectivity between the right inferior parietal sulcus and the insula cortex (). The functional role of the insula and its connections to sensations relating to the body are well known (; ; ) and seem to concern both its fundamental role in the central processing of interoceptive signals from the body () and its contribution to the salience network of the brain (). Indeed, over-focalisation on bodily sensations () and a perceptual style involving the amplification of interoceptive stimulation (; ) have been reported in FM patients, but these are not associated with greater interoceptive accuracy ().
Corporeal Illusion and Clinical Variables
No correlations were found between the severity of symptoms or their impact on autonomy (as measured by the SSS, the WPI, and the FIQ) and the various types of corporeal illusions, or between these latter and the intensity of neuromuscular, neuropathic or visceral pain. In the FM group, the only correlations found were between age and feelings of body loss and between age and neuropathic pain.
This was an unexpected result considering that, in the C group, a correlation with the severity of pain was recorded. Furthermore, distortions in body size, weight and localisation have been found to be associated with pain in previous studies (; for a review). It is possible that the setting or the timing of the interview have an effect and that the link between clinical variables only becomes evident when the patients are interviewed in conjunction with an episode of pain (as for example in , in which interviews involving the elicitation of pain were used). At the same, it might be worth considering whether the absence of any impact relating to anxiety and depression on corporeal illusions may depend on the specific sample of patients who took part in this study, since none of them were undergoing a painful episode. Anxiety and depressive symptoms are reported as being relatively high among FM patients (; ), but no differences were recorded in our sample in comparison to the healthy controls.
Interestingly, somatoparaphrenic-like sensations directly correlate with education in the C group. Relationships between education and bodily illusions have been rarely investigated, probably because the standards of education in experimental studies are usually matched between groups. However, recent studies with the Rubber Hand Illusion are showing that interindividual differences such as education might have an impact on bodily illusions (; ; ; , ; ). However, these interindividual characteristics are not sufficient to explain the individual responses to the induced illusion (; ; ). A possible explanation for this effect is that more educated people show a greater “Openness to Experience” trait of personality, that also involves a leaning toward non-traditional values and experiences (). This might lead to the tendency to acceptance of unusual bodily sensations. This is indeed only a speculative hypothesis, as in this study these data on personality traits were not collected
Motor Imagery
Another result of this study regards the evidence found of specific disorders in motor imagery in FM patients. These involve both the capacity to visually imagine one’s own body while performing an action and the ability to imagine the kinematic sensations produced by that action. In particular, they showed a reduced motor imagery both in the kinaesthetic and third-person perspective imagery. In the FM group, these capacities were reduced in correlation with the loss of functional abilities (FIQ), while no correlations were found with the severity of symptoms and pain intensity, as occurred in the case of the controls. In addition, the FM patient’s history of illness (in terms of the time interval between the appearance of the first symptoms and the degree of depression) correlated with their visual motor imagery disorders.
Motor imagery is closely connected to action execution, as demonstrated by neuroimaging results showing that MI involves neural structures largely overlapping with those involved in actually performing the imagined movements, in particular the pre-motor areas, the left intraparietal sulcus, and subcortical structures such as basal ganglia and cerebellum (; ; ; ). The inherent link between motor imagery and action execution has been confirmed in studies showing that MI is altered in a number of pathological conditions characterised by an impairment of the ability to actually perform actions such as locked-in syndrome (), spinal cord injury () amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (), and chronic pain conditions (; ). Our results suggest that rather than the pain itself, it is the functional deficits which induce motor imagery deficits in FM patients. This would be also consistent with results relating to spinal cord injured patients, which indicate that disorders in motor imagery specifically refer to the actions that have become impossible to execute due to paralysis (; ). The direction of this relationship has yet to be fully understood, however, since although it is possible that functional deficits mediate a reduction in motor imagery, the opposite is also plausible, that is, that motor imagery disorders influence functional abilities.
Conclusion
The main limitation of the study concerns the number of participants which was not very large in terms of the methodology used which was based on a verbal interview (BoFI-FM) and a self-judgment task (VMIQ). However, the sample seems to be sufficiently representative of the clinical population if one considers the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria for the two groups and the in-depth clinical assessment administered that included functional and emotional measures. In addition, only women were recruited for the study, due to the rarity of the syndrome among males. This did not allow testing for gender differences. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results and compare subjective reports with objective measures of body representations and somatosensory and interoceptive sensitivity. It was not possible to identify the potential presence of a topography relating to corporeal illusions and motor imagery deficits. In other words, it was not established whether the body representation and motor imagery disorders were specific to the painful body parts or were generalised to the whole body. This limitation is inherent to the specific clinical condition, since FM is characterised by widespread pain that involves various different body parts, without a specific topographic organisation—something which is, in contrast, observable, for example, in focal dystonia, or chronic regional pain. It is thus extremely difficult to trace a topography of body representation disorders. Finally, no measure of interoception was collected.
In conclusion, the results indicate that bodily self and motor imagery disorders are two features of FM and that these may be investigated in clinical settings using specific instrumentation. This may, at least in part, explain the higher frequency of falls in these patients which has previously been associated with an altered body schema (; ). From a more general, theoretical perspective, our results demonstrate that FM is a complex, multifaceted syndrome and that body representation disorders, although concurrent, are, however, independent from pain.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are publicly available. This data can be found here: osf.io/vxgqj.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Comitato etico per la Sperimentazione Clinica (CESC) delle Province di Verona e Rovigo. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
MS: study ideation and planning, data collection, statistical analyses, and writing. GP: study planning, control recruitment, and data collection. GL: data collection. EP: patient recruitment and clinical assessment. VS: patient recruitment, clinical assessment, and writing. VM: study ideation and planning, data collection, writing, and supervision of all phases of the study. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This study was supported by the Italian University Ministry (VM; PRIN 2017–2017N7WCLP) and by the Cariverona Foundation (VM & MS; project Eccellenza Cariverona 2018 (ROL10782-COD.SIME 2018.0898).
Acknowledgments
We thank all the participants in the study. Many thanks also to Erica Secchettin for her help in the procedures for Ethical Committee application and Cristina Lonardi and Roberta Fraccaroli who aided the efforts of the authors during data collection.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.798912/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AblinJ. N.OrenA.CohenS.AloushV.BuskilaD.ElkayamO.et al (2012). Prevalence of fibromyalgia in the Israeli population.Clin. Exp. Rheumatol.3039–43.
2
AkkayaN.AtalayN. S.SelcukS. T.AlkanH.CatalbasN.SahinF. (2013). Frequency of fibromyalgia syndrome in breast cancer patients.Int. J. Clin. Oncol.18285–292. 10.1007/s10147-012-0377-9
3
AndradeA.VilarinoG. T.SieczkowskaS. M.CoimbraD. R.BevilacquaG. G.SteffensR. D. A. K. (2020). The relationship between sleep quality and fibromyalgia symptoms.J. Health Psychol.251176–1186. 10.1177/1359105317751615
4
AppsM. A. J.Tajadura-JiménezA.SerenoM.BlankeO.TsakirisM. (2015). Plasticity in unimodal and multimodal brain areas reflects multisensory changes in self-face identification.Cereb. Cortex2546–55. 10.1093/cercor/bht199
5
BerlucchiG.AgliotiS. M. (2010). The body in the brain revisited.Exp. Brain Res.20025–35. 10.1007/s00221-009-1970-7
6
BjellandI.DahlA. A.HaugT. T.NeckelmannD. (2002). The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale.J. Psychosom. Res.5269–77. 10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00296-3
7
BoehmeR.Van Ettinger-VeenstraH.OlaussonH.GerdleB.NagiS. S. (2020). Anhedonia to gentle touch in fibromyalgia: normal sensory processing but abnormal evaluation.Brain Sci.10:306. 10.3390/brainsci10050306
8
BonazB.LaneR. D.OshinskyM. L.KennyP. J.SinhaR.MayerE. A.et al (2021). Diseases, disorders, and comorbidities of interoception.Trends Neurosci.4439–51. 10.1016/j.tins.2020.09.009
9
BondaE.PetridesM.FreyS.EvansA. (1995). Neural correlates of mental transformations of the body-in-space.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.9211180–11184. 10.1073/pnas.92.24.11180
10
BorgC.ChouchouF.Dayot-GorleroJ.ZimmermannP.MaudouxD.LaurentB.et al (2018). Pain and emotion as predictive factors of interoception in fibromyalgia.J. Pain Res.11823–835. 10.2147/JPR.S152012
11
BotvinickM.CohenJ. (1998). Rubber hands “feel” touch that eyes see.Nature391:756. 10.1038/35784
12
BouhassiraD.AttalN.AlchaarH.BoureauF.BrochetB.BruxelleJ.et al (2005). Comparison of pain syndromes associated with nervous or somatic lesions and development of a new neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4).Pain11429–36. 10.1016/j.pain.2004.12.010
13
BrancoJ. C.BannwarthB.FaildeI.Abello CarbonellJ.BlotmanF.SpaethM.et al (2010). Prevalence of fibromyalgia: a survey in five European countries.Semin. Arthritis Rheum.39448–453. 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2008.12.003
14
BurinD.PignoloC.AlesF.GirominiL.PyasikM.GhirardelloD.et al (2019). Relationships between personality features and the rubber hand illusion: an exploratory study.Front. Psychol.10:2762. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02762
15
CaraceniA.MendozaT. R.MencagliaE.BaratellaC.EdwardsK.ForjazM. J.et al (1996). A validation study of an Italian version of the brief pain inventory (Breve Questionario per la Valutazione del Dolore).Pain6587–92. 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00156-5
16
ChinnS.CaldwellW.GritsenkoK. (2016). Fibromyalgia pathogenesis and treatment options update.Curr. Pain Headache Rep.201–10. 10.1007/s11916-016-0556-x
17
ConsonM.MazzarellaE.TrojanoL. (2013). Developmental changes of the biomechanical effect in motor imagery.Exp. Brain Res.226441–449. 10.1007/s00221-013-3456-x
18
ConsonM.SaccoS.SaràM.PistoiaF.GrossiD.TrojanoL. (2008). Selective motor imagery defect in patients with locked-in syndrome.Neuropsychologia462622–2628. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.04.015
19
Corradi-Dell’AcquaC.TomasinoB.FinkG. R. (2009). What is the position of an arm relative to the body? Neural correlates of body schema and body structural description.J. Neurosci.294162–4171. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4861-08.2009
20
CoslettH. B.MedinaJ.KliotD.BurkeyA. R. (2010). Mental motor imagery indexes pain: the hand laterality task.Eur. J. Pain141007–1013. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.04.001
21
CostantiniM.RobinsonJ.MiglioratiD.DonnoB.FerriF.NorthoffG. (2016). Temporal limits on rubber hand illusion reflect individuals’ temporal resolution in multisensory perception.Cognition15739–48. 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.010
22
CraigA. D. (2003). Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body.Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.13500–505. 10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00090-4
23
CraigA. D. (2009). How do you feel—now? The anterior insula and human awareness.Nat. Rev. Neurosci.1059–70. 10.1038/nrn2555
24
DavidN.FioriF.AgliotiS. M. (2013). Susceptibility to the rubber hand illusion does not tell the whole body-awareness story.Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci.14297–306. 10.3758/s13415-013-0190-6
25
DecetyJ. (1996). Neural representations for action.Rev. Neurosci.7285–297. 10.1515/REVNEURO.1996.7.4.285
26
Di LerniaD.SerinoS.RivaG. (2016). Pain in the body. Altered interoception in chronic pain conditions: a systematic review.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.71328–341. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.015
27
EhrssonH. H.FotopoulouA.RadziunD.LongoM.TsakirisM. (2021). No specific relationship between hypnotic suggestibility and the rubber hand illusion?: a commentary with new and verification analyses.psyArxiv [Preprint] 10.31234/osf.io/pmzgc
28
FioriF.SeddaA.FerrèE. R.ToraldoA.QuerzolaM.PasottiF.et al (2013). Exploring motor and visual imagery in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Exp. brain Res.226537–547. 10.1007/s00221-013-3465-9
29
ForniaL.PuglisiG.LeonettiA.BelloL.BertiA.CerriG.et al (2020). Direct electrical stimulation of the premotor cortex shuts down awareness of voluntary actions.Nat. Commun.11:705. 10.1038/s41467-020-14517-4
30
FurnessP. J.VogtK.AsheS.TaylorS.Haywood-SmallS.LawsonK. (2018). What causes fibromyalgia? An online survey of patient perspectives.Heal. Psychol. Open5:2055102918802683. 10.1177/2055102918802683
31
GerardinE.SiriguA.LehéricyS.PolineJ. B.GaymardB.MarsaultC.et al (2000). Partially overlapping neural networks for real and imagined hand movements.Cereb. Cortex101093–1104. 10.1093/cercor/10.11.1093
32
GolaszewskiS.FreyV.ThomschewskiA.SebastianelliL.VersaceV.SaltuariL.et al (2021). Neural mechanisms underlying the rubber hand illusion: a systematic review of related neurophysiological studies.Brain Behav.111–13. 10.1002/brb3.2124
33
GustinS. M.WrigleyP. J.GandeviaS. C.MiddletonJ. W.HendersonL. A.SiddallP. J. (2008). Movement imagery increases pain in people with neuropathic pain following complete thoracic spinal cord injury.Pain137237–244. 10.1016/j.pain.2007.08.032
34
HaansA.KaiserF. G.BouwhuisD. G.IjsselsteijnW. A. (2012). Individual differences in the rubber-hand illusion: predicting self-reports of people’s personal experiences.Acta Psychol.141169–177. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.016
35
HadlandsmythK.DaileyD. L.RakelB. A.ZimmermanM. B.VanceC. G. T.MerriwetherE. N.et al (2019). Somatic symptom presentations in women with fibromyalgia are differentially associated with elevated depression and anxiety.J. Health Psychol.25:135910531773657. 10.1177/1359105317736577
36
HaggardP.IannettiG. D.LongoM. R. (2013). Spatial sensory organization and body representation in pain perception.Curr. Biol.23R164–R176. 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.047
37
HäuserW.AblinJ.FitzcharlesM. A.LittlejohnG.LucianoJ. V.UsuiC.et al (2015). Fibromyalgia.Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim.11–16. 10.1038/nrdp.2015.22
38
HäuserW.FitzcharlesM. A. (2018). Facts and myths pertaining to fibromyalgia. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 20, 53–62. 10.31887/DCNS.2018.20.1/whauser
39
IontaS.BlankeO. (2009). Differential influence of hands posture on mental rotation of hands and feet in left and right handers.Exp. Brain Res.195207–217. 10.1007/s00221-009-1770-0
40
IontaS.FourkasA. D.AgliotiS. M. (2010). Egocentric and object-based transformations in the laterality judgement of human and animal faces and of non-corporeal objects.Behav. Brain Res.207452–457. 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.10.037
41
IsaacA.MarksD. F.RussellD. G. (1986). An instrument for assessing imagery of movement: the vividness of movement imagery questionnaire (VMIQ). J. Ment. Imag. 10, 23–30. 10.1037/t07980-000
42
JenkinsonP. M.EdelstynN. M. J.PrestonC.EllisS. J. (2015). Anarchic hand with abnormal agency following right inferior parietal lobe damage: a case report.Neurocase21471–478. 10.1080/13554794.2014.925936
43
JenkinsonP. M.MoroV.FotopoulouA. (2018). Definition: asomatognosia.Cortex101300–301. 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.02.001
44
JenkinsonP. M.PapadakiC.BesharatiS.MoroV.GobbettoV.CrucianelliL.et al (2020). Welcoming back my arm: affective touch increases body ownership following right-hemisphere stroke.Brain Commun.2:fcaa034. 10.1093/braincomms/fcaa034
45
JonesK. D.HorakF. B.Winters-StoneK.IrvineJ. M.BennettR. M. (2009). Fibromyalgia is associated with impaired balance and falls. J. Clin. Rheumatol. 15, 16–21. 10.1097/RHU.0b013e318190f991
46
KállaiJ.HegedüsG.FeldmannÁRózsaS.DarnaiG.HeroldR.et al (2015). Temperament and psychopathological syndromes specific susceptibility for rubber hand illusion.Psychiatry Res.229410–419. 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.05.109
47
KarnathH.-O.BaierB.NägeleT. (2005). Awareness of the functioning of one’s own limbs mediated by the insular cortex?J. Neurosci.257134–7138. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1590-05.2005
48
KumruH.SolerD.VidalJ.NavarroX.TormosJ. M.Pascual-LeoneA.et al (2013). The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation with visual illusion in neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury: an evoked potentials and quantitative thermal testing study.Eur. J. Pain1755–66. 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00167.x
49
Le BarsD.DickensonA. H.BessonJ. (1979). Diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC). II. Lack of effect on non-convergent neurones, supraspinal involvement and theoretical implications.Pain6305–327. 10.1016/0304-3959(79)90050-2
50
LushP.BotanV.ScottR. B.SethA. K.WardJ.DienesZ. (2020). Trait phenomenological control predicts experience of mirror synaesthesia and the rubber hand illusion.Nat. Commun.11:4853. 10.1038/s41467-020-18591-6
51
LushP.SethA. K.DienesZ. (2021). Hypothesis awareness confounds asynchronous control conditions in indirect measures of the rubber hand illusion. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8:210911. 10.1098/rsos.210911
52
MaltE. A.OlafssonS.LundA.UrsinH. (2002). Factors explaining variance in perceived pain in women with fibromyalgia.BMC Musculoskelet. Disord.3:12. 10.1186/1471-2474-3-12
53
MaravitaA.SpenceC.DriverJ. (2003). Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach.Curr. Biol.13R531–R539. 10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00449-4
54
MartínezE.AiraZ.BuesaI.AizpuruaI.RadaD.AzkueJ. J. (2018). Embodied pain in fibromyalgia: disturbed somatorepresentations and increased plasticity of the body schema.PLoS One13:e0194534. 10.1371/journal.pone.0194534
55
MartínezE.GuillenV.BuesaI.AzkueJ. J. (2019). A distorted body schema and susceptibility to experiencing anomalous somatosensory sensations in fibromyalgia syndrome.Clin. J. Pain35887–893. 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000754
56
MeirelesS. A.AnteroD. C.KulczyckiM. M.SkareT. L. (2014). Prevalence of falls in fibromyalgia patients. Acta Ortop. Bras. 22, 163–166. 10.1590/1413-78522014220300386
57
MenonV.UddinL. Q. (2010). Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function.Brain Struct. Funct.214655–667. 10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0
58
MontiA.PorcielloG.TieriG.AgliotiS. M. (2020). The “embreathment” illusion highlights the role of breathing in corporeal awareness.J. Neurophysiol.123420–427. 10.1152/JN.00617.2019
59
MoriwakiK.YugeO. (1999). Topographical features of cutaneous tactile hypoesthetic and hyperesthetic abnormalities in chronic pain.Pain811–6. 10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00257-7
60
MoroV.PacellaV.ScandolaM.BesharatiS.RossatoE.JenkinsonP.et al (2021b). A fronto-insular-parietal network for the sense of body ownership.Research Square [Preprint] 10.21203/rs.3.rs-428666/v1
61
MoroV.CorbellaM.IontaS.FerrariF.ScandolaM. (2021a). Cognitive training improves disconnected limbs’ mental representation and peripersonal space after spinal cord injury.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18:9589. 10.3390/ijerph18189589
62
MoroV.PernigoS.TsakirisM.AvesaniR.EdelstynN. M. J.JenkinsonP. M.et al (2016). Motor versus body awareness: voxel-based lesion analysis in anosognosia for hemiplegia and somatoparaphrenia following right hemisphere stroke.Cortex8362–77. 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.07.001
63
MoseleyG. L. (2004). Graded motor imagery is effective for long-standing complex regional pain syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.Pain108192–198. 10.1016/j.pain.2004.01.006
64
MoseleyG. L.GallaceA.SpenceC. (2012). Bodily illusions in health and disease: physiological and clinical perspectives and the concept of a cortical “body matrix”.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.3634–46. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.013
65
MotykaP.LitwinP. (2019). Proprioceptive precision and degree of visuo-proprioceptive discrepancy do not influence the strength of the rubber hand illusion.Perception48882–891. 10.1177/0301006619865189
66
NizziM. C.DemertziA.GosseriesO.BrunoM. A.JouenF.LaureysS. (2012). From armchair to wheelchair: how patients with a locked-in syndrome integrate bodily changes in experienced identity.Conscious. Cogn.21431–437. 10.1016/j.concog.2011.10.010
67
OsumiM.OkunoH.NishigamiT.UetaK.MoriokaS. (2015). Tactile localization training for pain, sensory disturbance, and distorted body image: a case study of complex regional pain syndrome.Neurocase21628–634. 10.1080/13554794.2014.961482
68
PacellaV.FoulonC.JenkinsonP. M.ScandolaM.BertagnoliS.AvesaniR.et al (2019). Anosognosia for hemiplegia as a tripartite disconnection syndrome.Elife8:e46075. 10.7554/eLife.46075
69
ParsonsL. M. (1994). Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.20709–730.
70
PavaniF.ZampiniM. (2007). The role of hand size in the fake-hand illusion paradigm.Perception361547–1554. 10.1068/p5853
71
PavaniF.SpenceC.DriverJ. (2000). Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves.Psychol. Sci.11353–359. 10.1111/1467-9280.00270
72
PernigoS.MoroV.AvesaniR.MiatelloC.UrgesiC.AgliotiS. M. (2012). Massive somatic deafferentation and motor deefferentation of the lower part of the body impair its visual recognition: a psychophysical study of patients with spinal cord injury.Eur. J. Neurosci.363509–3518. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08266.x
73
PlegerB.RagertP.SchwenkreisP.FörsterA.-F.WilimzigC.DinseH.et al (2006). Patterns of cortical reorganization parallel impaired tactile discrimination and pain intensity in complex regional pain syndrome.Neuroimage32503–510. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.03.045
74
PlonerM.PollokB.SchnitzlerA. (2004). Pain facilitates tactile processing in human somatosensory cortices.J. Neurophysiol.921825–1829. 10.1152/jn.00260.2004
75
PorcielloG.BufalariI.Minio-PaluelloI.Di PaceE.AgliotiS. M. (2018). The ‘Enfacement’ illusion: a window on the plasticity of the self.Cortex104261–275. 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.01.007
76
R Core Team (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
77
ReaL. M.ParkerR. A. (2014). Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide.San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
78
RobertsR.CallowN.HardyL.MarklandD.BringerJ. (2008). Movement imagery ability: development and assessment of a revised version of the vividness of movement imagery questionnaire. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 30, 200–21. 10.1123/jsep.30.2.200
79
RomanoD.MaravitaA. (2019). The dynamic nature of the sense of ownership after brain injury. Clues from asomatognosia and somatoparaphrenia.Neuropsychologia132:107119. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107119
80
RomanoD.MaravitaA.PeruginiM. (2021). Psychometric properties of the embodiment scale for the rubber hand illusion and its relation with individual differences.Sci. Rep.11:5029. 10.1038/s41598-021-84595-x
81
RostS.Van RyckeghemD. M. L.SchulzA.CrombezG.VögeleC. (2017). Generalized hypervigilance in fibromyalgia: normal interoceptive accuracy, but reduced self-regulatory capacity.J. Psychosom. Res.9348–54. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.12.003
82
SalvatoG.PevianiV.ScaranoE.ScarpaP.LeoA.RedaelliT.et al (2017). Dissociation between preserved body structural description and impaired body image following a pediatric spinal trauma.Neurocase23149–153. 10.1080/13554794.2017.1332227
83
Sarzi-PuttiniP.AtzeniF.FioriniT.PanniB.RandisiG.TurielM.et al (2003). Validation of an Italian version of the fibromyalgia impact questionnaire (FIQ-I).Clin. Exp. Rheumatol.21459–464.
84
ScandolaM.AgliotiS. M.AvesaniR.BertagnoniG.MarangoniA.MoroV. (2017a). Corporeal illusions in chronic spinal cord injuries.Conscious. Cogn.49278–290. 10.1016/j.concog.2017.01.010
85
ScandolaM.AgliotiS. M.PozegP.AvesaniR.MoroV. (2017b). Motor imagery in spinal cord injured people is modulated by somatotopic coding, perspective taking, and post-lesional chronic pain.J. Neuropsychol.11305–326. 10.1111/jnp.12098
86
ScandolaM.TidoniE.AvesaniR.BrunelliG.AgliotiS. M.MoroV. (2014). Rubber hand illusion induced by touching the face ipsilaterally to a deprived hand: evidence for plastic “somatotopic” remapping in tetraplegics.Front. Hum. Neurosci.8:404. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00404
87
ScandolaM.TogniR.TieriG.AvesaniR.BrambillaM.AgliotiS. M.et al (2019b). Embodying their own wheelchair modifies extrapersonal space perception in people with spinal cord injury.Exp. Brain Res.2372621–2632. 10.1007/s00221-019-05618-8
88
ScandolaM.DodoniL.LazzeriG.ArcangeliC. A.AvesaniR.MoroV.et al (2019a). Neurocognitive benefits of physiotherapy for spinal cord injury.J. Neurotrauma362028–2035. 10.1089/neu.2018.6123
89
SchretlenD. J.van der HulstE.-J.PearlsonG. D.GordonB. (2010). A neuropsychological study of personality: trait openness in relation to intelligence, fluency, and executive functioning.J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol.321068–1073. 10.1080/13803391003689770
90
SchwoebelJ.CoslettH. B. (2005). Evidence for multiple, distinct representations of the human body.J. Cogn. Neurosci.17543–553. 10.1162/0898929053467587
91
SchwoebelJ.FriedmanR.DudaN.CoslettH. B. (2001). Pain and the body schema: evidence for peripheral effects on mental representations of movement.Brain124(Pt 10) 2098–2104. 10.1093/brain/124.10.2098
92
SolerD.MoriñaD.KumruH.VidalJ.NavarroX. (2021). Transcranial direct current stimulation and visual illusion effect according to sensory phenotypes in patients with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain.J. Pain2286–96. 10.1016/j.jpain.2020.06.004
93
SolerM. D.KumruH.PelayoR.VidalJ.TormosJ. M.FregniF.et al (2010). Effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation and visual illusion on neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury.Brain1332565–2577. 10.1093/brain/awq184
94
Tajadura-JiménezA.TsakirisM. (2014). Balancing the “inner” and the “outer” self: interoceptive sensitivity modulates self-other boundaries.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.143736–744. 10.1037/a0033171
95
TeodoroT.EdwardsM. J.IsaacsJ. D. (2018). A unifying theory for cognitive abnormalities in functional neurological disorders, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome: systematic review.J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry891308–1319. 10.1136/jnnp-2017-317823
96
TieriG.TidoniE.PavoneE. F.AgliotiS. M. (2015b). Mere observation of body discontinuity affects perceived ownership and vicarious agency over a virtual hand.Exp. brain Res.2331247–1259. 10.1007/s00221-015-4202-3
97
TieriG.TidoniE.PavoneE. F.AgliotiS. M. (2015a). Body visual discontinuity affects feeling of ownership and skin conductance responses.Sci. Rep.5:17139. 10.1038/srep17139
98
ToddJ.CardellicchioP.SwamiV.CardiniF.AspellJ. E. (2021). Weaker implicit interoception is associated with more negative body image: evidence from gastric-alpha phase amplitude coupling and the heartbeat evoked potential.Cortex143254–266. 10.1016/j.cortex.2021.07.006
99
TomczakM.TomczakE. (2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size.Trends Sport Sci.119–25.
100
TsakirisM.HaggardP. (2005). The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.3180–91. 10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80
101
TsakirisM.LongoM. R.HaggardP. (2010). Having a body versus moving your body: neural signatures of agency and body-ownership.Neuropsychologia482740–2749. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.021
102
TsayA.AllenT. J.ProskeU.GiummarraM. J. (2015). Sensing the body in chronic pain: a review of psychophysical studies implicating altered body representation.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.52221–232. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.03.004
103
Valenzuela-MoguillanskyC.O’ReganJ. K.PetitmenginC. (2013). Exploring the subjective experience of the “rubber hand” illusion.Front. Hum. Neurosci.7:659. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00659
104
Valenzuela-MoguillanskyC.Reyes-ReyesA.GaeteM. I. (2017). Exteroceptive and interoceptive body-self awareness in fibromyalgia patients.Front. Hum. Neurosci.11:117. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00117
105
van Ettinger-VeenstraH.BoehmeR.GhafouriB.OlaussonH.WicksellR. K.GerdleB. (2020). Exploration of functional connectivity changes previously reported in fibromyalgia and their relation to psychological distress and pain measures.J. Clin. Med.9:3560. 10.3390/jcm9113560
106
WolfeF. (2003). Pain extent and diagnosis: development and validation of the regional pain scale in 12,799 patients with rheumatic disease.J. Rheumatol.30369–378.
107
WolfeF.BrählerE.HinzA.HäuserW. (2013). Fibromyalgia prevalence, somatic symptom reporting, and the dimensionality of polysymptomatic distress: results from a survey of the general population.Arthritis Care Res.65777–785. 10.1002/acr.21931
108
WolfeF.ClauwD. J.FitzcharlesM. A.GoldenbergD. L.HäuserW.KatzR. L.et al (2016). 2016 Revisions to the 2010/2011 fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria.Semin. Arthritis Rheum.46319–329. 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2016.08.012
109
WolfeF.WalittB.PerrotS.RaskerJ. J.HäuserW. (2018). Fibromyalgia diagnosis and biased assessment: sex, prevalence and bias.PLoS One13:e0203755. 10.1371/journal.pone.0203755
Summary
Keywords
body representations, chronic pain, chronic pain and fibromyalgia, disturbed sense of ownership, action representation, bodily self, anxiety and depression
Citation
Scandola M, Pietroni G, Landuzzi G, Polati E, Schweiger V and Moro V (2022) Bodily Illusions and Motor Imagery in Fibromyalgia. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15:798912. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.798912
Received
20 October 2021
Accepted
13 December 2021
Published
20 January 2022
Volume
15 - 2021
Edited by
Silvia Serino, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Italy
Reviewed by
Enrica Laura Santarcangelo, University of Pisa, Italy; Domna Banakou, University of Barcelona, Spain
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Scandola, Pietroni, Landuzzi, Polati, Schweiger and Moro.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Michele Scandola, michele.scandola@univr.itValentina Moro, valentina.moro@univr.it
This article was submitted to Sensory Neuroscience, a section of the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.