2009
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awp135
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The use of visual feedback, in particular mirror visual feedback, in restoring brain function

Abstract: This article reviews the potential use of visual feedback, focusing on mirror visual feedback, introduced over 15 years ago, for the treatment of many chronic neurological disorders that have long been regarded as intractable such as phantom pain, hemiparesis from stroke and complex regional pain syndrome. Apart from its clinical importance, mirror visual feedback paves the way for a paradigm shift in the way we approach neurological disorders. Instead of resulting entirely from irreversible damage to speciali… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

5
390
1
21

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 557 publications
(417 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
5
390
1
21
Order By: Relevance
“…In some cases, mirror therapy was successful despite patient skepticism whereas in other cases, patient expectation did not produce a positive outcome, which questions the assumed prerequisite that one has to believe in the illusion [13]. The variety of treatment approaches and attitudes (outlined earlier) reflects the practitioners' professional experience and confidence, and supports the suggestion by Ramachandran and Altschuler [3] that different treatments may suit different patients. The low incidence of dizziness and nausea reported in the current study is in contrast to the high incidence reported in the study by Casale et al [16], a note evaluation with a high withdrawal rate from MVF treatment [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In some cases, mirror therapy was successful despite patient skepticism whereas in other cases, patient expectation did not produce a positive outcome, which questions the assumed prerequisite that one has to believe in the illusion [13]. The variety of treatment approaches and attitudes (outlined earlier) reflects the practitioners' professional experience and confidence, and supports the suggestion by Ramachandran and Altschuler [3] that different treatments may suit different patients. The low incidence of dizziness and nausea reported in the current study is in contrast to the high incidence reported in the study by Casale et al [16], a note evaluation with a high withdrawal rate from MVF treatment [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…In 1993, Ramachandran and Altschuler [3] first discovered mirror visual feedback (MVF) to be able to address the issue of phantom pain by creating an illusion with a mirror in a box that was placed in front of the patient in such a way that the missing limb could be seen as a reflection of the remaining limb. This visual input resulted in pain relief.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[13,14,[26][27][28][29][30] It is a method that can be used independently by nurses to manage the care of a patient with PLP. In addition, it provides a great opportunity for amputees to be able to manage their pain themselves.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[4,[6][7][8][9] Individual physiological, environmental, and psychological factors are involved in the etiology of PLP. [4,[10][11][12][13][14][15] Pathophysiology of PLP is not clearly known yet. However, it is speculated that central and peripheral nerve systems play an important role in the occurrence of PLP.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation