Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 1997 Jul 22;264(1384):1007–1010. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0139

Synaesthesia in the normal limb.

M Mon-Williams 1, J P Wann 1, M Jenkinson 1, K Rushton 1
PMCID: PMC1688538  PMID: 9263468

Abstract

We explored the degree to which vision may alter kinaesthetic perception by asking participants to view their hand through a prism, introducing different horizontal deviations, while trying to align their fingers above and below a thin table. When the visual image of one hand was displaced this overwhelmed kinaesthetic judgements and participants reliably reported that they felt their limbs were aligned, even when they were laterally mis-aligned by as much as 10 cm. This effect, however, was mediated by 'visual capture' and when the task was attempted in a darkened room with limb position indicated by an LED taped to the finger, kinaesthesis dominated and participants reported that the LED seemed to become detached from their finger tip. In both light and dark conditions the finger was clearly visible and only the background detail was extinguished. Hence, in perceiving limb position, it appears that we believe in what we see, rather than in what we feel, when the visual background is rich, and in what we feel when the visual background is sparse.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (227.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Biguer B., Donaldson I. M., Hein A., Jeannerod M. Neck muscle vibration modifies the representation of visual motion and direction in man. Brain. 1988 Dec;111(Pt 6):1405–1424. doi: 10.1093/brain/111.6.1405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. HARRIS C. S. Adaptation to displaced vision: visual, motor, or proprioceptive change? Science. 1963 May 17;140(3568):812–813. doi: 10.1126/science.140.3568.812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. HELD R., FREEDMAN S. J. PLASTICITY IN HUMAN SENSORIMOTOR CONTROL. Science. 1963 Oct 25;142(3591):455–462. doi: 10.1126/science.142.3591.455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Harris C. S. Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision. Psychol Rev. 1965 Nov;72(6):419–444. doi: 10.1037/h0022616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lackner J. R. Some proprioceptive influences on the perceptual representation of body shape and orientation. Brain. 1988 Apr;111(Pt 2):281–297. doi: 10.1093/brain/111.2.281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. ROCK I., VICTOR J. VISION AND TOUCH: AN EXPERIMENTALLY CREATED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO SENSES. Science. 1964 Feb 7;143(3606):594–596. doi: 10.1126/science.143.3606.594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ramachandran V. S., Rogers-Ramachandran D., Cobb S. Touching the phantom limb. Nature. 1995 Oct 12;377(6549):489–490. doi: 10.1038/377489a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ramachandran V. S., Rogers-Ramachandran D. Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proc Biol Sci. 1996 Apr 22;263(1369):377–386. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1996.0058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wann J. P., Ibrahim S. F. Does limb proprioception drift? Exp Brain Res. 1992;91(1):162–166. doi: 10.1007/BF00230024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES