Our brains capacity to adapt, known as cortical plasticity, is integral to our successful functioning in daily life, as well as rehabilitation from injury. A key model for exploring the extent, and consequences of, cortical plasticity is upper-limb loss (via amputation or congenital absence). Here, the cortical hand territory in the primary somatosensory cortex (hereafter S1), suffers an extreme loss of sensory input in tandem with dramatic alterations of motor behaviour (Makin et al., 2013a; Muret and Makin, 2021). The functional and perceptual correlates of amputation-related plasticity are currently debated (Makin and Bensmaia, 2017; Ortiz-Catalan, 2018). In particular, it is not clear whether functional cortical reorganisation is restricted to early life development or can also occur in adults.

Traditionally, research assessing cortical plasticity after upper-limb loss has followed the tenet that neighbouring body parts of the missing hand, and the lower face in particular, shift and encroach into the deprived hand area. This emphasis on the lip representation stems from early electrophysiological work in non-human primates, where numerous studies demonstrated an ‘upside-down’ facial somatotopy, with the lower face immediately neighbouring the hand (Dreyer et al., 1975; Merzenich et al., 1978; Sur et al., 1982; Cusick et al., 1986; Lin and Sessle, 1994; Manger et al., 1995; Manger et al., 1996; Jain et al., 2001; Cerkevich et al., 2014). Here, the lips and/or chin inputs have been shown to remap into the deprived hand area after sensory loss (Pons et al., 1991; Jain et al., 1997), leading to the well-accepted assumption that remapping is determined by cortical proximity (Buonomano and Merzenich, 1998; Nardone et al., 2013). Thereafter, human measurement of topographic shifts has tended to focus on that of the lips, where researchers have reported that shifted lip representation towards and into the deprived hand area is significantly associated with phantom limb pain (PLP) intensity (Flor et al., 1995; Birbaumer et al., 1997; Lotze et al., 2001; Grüsser et al., 2001; Foell et al., 2014). PLP is a neuropathic pain syndrome experienced in the missing, amputated limb by the majority of amputees (Limakatso et al., 2019). This condition is commonly thought to arise from maladaptive cortical plasticity in S1 (although see Makin, 2021), specifically from a signal mismatch between the missing hand representation and the remapped inputs of the lips in the deprived hand area (Ramachandran and Hirstein, 1998).

The research focus on lip cortical remapping in amputees is based on the assumption that the lips neighbour the hand representation. However, this assumption goes against the classical upright orientation of the face in S1 (Penfield, 1950; Schwartz et al., 2004; Roux et al., 2018; Sato et al., 2005; Willoughby et al., 2020), as first depicted in Penfield’s Homunculus and in later intracortical recordings and stimulation studies (Penfield, 1950; Schwartz et al., 2004; Roux et al., 2018; Sato et al., 2005), with the upper-face (i.e. forehead) bordering the hand area. Furthermore, neuroimaging studies in humans studying face topography provided contradictory evidence for the past 30 years. While a few neuroimaging studies provided partial evidence in support of the traditional upright face organisation (Willoughby et al., 2020), other studies supported the inverted (or ‘upside-down’) somatotopic organisation of the face, similar to that of non-human primates (Yang et al., 1993; Servos et al., 1999). Other studies suggested a segmental organisation (Moulton et al., 2009), or even a lack of somatotopic organisation (Iannetti et al., 2003; Nguyen et al., 2004; Kopietz et al., 2009), whereas many studies provided inconclusive or incomplete results (Mogilner et al., 1994; Hoshiyama et al., 1996; Disbrow et al., 2003; Nevalainen et al., 2006). Together, the available evidence does not successfully converge on face topography in humans. In line with the upright organisation originally suggested by Penfield, recent work reported that the shift in the lip representation towards the missing hand in amputees was minimal (Makin et al., 2015; Raffin et al., 2016), and likely to reside within the face area itself. Surprisingly, there is currently no research that considers the representation of other facial parts, in particular the upper-face (e.g. the forehead), in relation to plasticity or PLP. Detailed mapping of the upper and lower face is therefore needed to assess typical topography of facial sensorimotor organisation, as well as remapping after limb loss.

More recent electrophysiological studies in monkeys demonstrated that much of the face remapping observed in the primary sensorimotor cortex following upper-limb deafferentation does not result from cortico-cortical plasticity, but instead arises from plasticity in the brainstem (Florence and Kaas, 1995; Kambi et al., 2014). This important finding also highlights the limited explanatory power of local activity increase that has been historically used to infer changes to the representational features of a given brain. Does it reflect a gain modulation of input coming from the brainstem, or increase of local processing of the face input in the hand area? While it remains challenging to dissociate these two contributions, alternative analysis tools are becoming increasingly popular for mining richer information of the processing underlying activity in a given cortical region. Multivariate analyses are sensitive to more subtle changes in representational content, that are not accessible with the traditional univariate approach. In the context of facial remapping, if the deprived hand area updates its local processing to include facial information (and does not just display more facial activity), we would expect it to show greater information about representational features relevant to different facial parts.

Remapping after upper-limb loss has also been documented in individuals born without a hand (hereafter one-handers), who do not experience PLP (Makin et al., 2013b). Here, it has been shown that the representation of multiple body parts, including the residual arm, legs and lips, remapped into the missing hand territory (Hahamy et al., 2017; Hahamy and Makin, 2019). Importantly, cortical remapping in this group does not depend on cortical proximity. With regard to the lips, a recent transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) study has reported functionally relevant lip activity in the deprived hand area of one-handers (Amoruso et al., 2021), showcasing that reported remapping may also be functional. It was proposed that the observed remapping of various body parts could have been shaped by compensatory behaviour (Hahamy et al., 2017), as these body parts are all used by one-handers to compensate for their missing hand function, but this hypothesis awaits validation.

Here, we conducted a mapping of face cortical organisation to determine facial orientation (upright versus inverted) in the primary sensorimotor cortex in 22 two-handed controls, 17 amputees, and 21 one-handers using an active functional MRI paradigm, where participants were visually instructed to move their forehead, nose, lips or tongue. This paradigm was chosen because it enabled simultaneous bilateral activation of S1 within individual participants, providing a within-participants control design. We also explored the representation of multiple facial movements, which have not been previously studied in the context of deprivation-triggered brain plasticity. To measure the extent of cortical remapping of the upper (forehead) and lower (lips) face in relation to the deprived (or non-dominant) hand area across all groups, we used surface-based topographic comparisons. For this purpose, we employed up-to-date methodology to harvest traditional measures, that is winner-takes-all assessment of surface coverage in the hand and face areas, followed by cortical (geodesic) distances, and similarity analysis of selectivity maps. Furthermore, to go beyond the gross topographic properties of face representation, we used multivariate representational similarity analysis (RSA). This approach allows us to characterise more subtle alterations in the relationship between facial activity patterns (forehead, nose, lips, tongue) in the deprived hand and the face areas.

We found that, in line with Penfield’s original description, facial topography was arranged in an upright manner, with the forehead (i.e. upper-face) bordering the hand area across all groups. Contrary to traditional theories (Flor et al., 2006), we did not find evidence for facial remapping of either the lips or the (cortically neighbouring) forehead, into the deprived hand area of amputees. We did, however, observe significant remapping of multiple face parts (upper and lower face) in the one-handers group, validating our methodology as suitable for identifying remapping effects. Interestingly, remapping of the cortical neighbour (upper-face) within the one-handers group was away from the missing hand area, while the lips and tongue representations shifted towards the deprived cortex, hinting that the underlying mechanism of remapping is more complex than simple cortical proximity.

It is a well-accepted notion, rooted in non-human primate electrophysiological data, that upper-limb amputation triggers cortical remapping of the assumed neighbour – the lower face – into the missing hand area. This previous work predominantly characterised remapping by investigating shifts of the lip representation (Flor et al., 1995; Birbaumer et al., 1997; Lotze et al., 2001; Grüsser et al., 2001; Foell et al., 2014; Karl et al., 2001; MacIver et al., 2008). However, by focusing on only one face part, activity elicited by other facial parts (such as the forehead) are not taken into account (see Muret and Makin, 2021). Here, we explored the relationship of face-to-hand remapping in controls and one-handed groups, and used both univariate (topographic) and multivariate (representational structure) methods to investigate in detail the information content of the face in both the deprived and intact hand and face areas. We found evidence for an upright somatotopy of the face across all groups, confirming that the cortical neighbour to the hand in humans is the upper, not lower, face. We further found little evidence for remapping of all tested facial parts in amputees, with no significant relationship to the presence of PLP. As a positive control, we also recruited individuals that were born without a hand (one-handers), who have previously shown cortical remapping across multiple body parts (Hahamy et al., 2017; Hahamy and Makin, 2019; Amoruso et al., 2021). Across multiple facial parts (forehead, lips and tongue), one-handers showed evidence for a complex pattern of face remapping in the deprived hand area, with consistent and converging evidence across analysis approaches. Finally, we demonstrate that facial representation in amputees’ deprived hemisphere is more similar to two-handed controls than to one-handers. Together, our findings demonstrate that the face representation in humans is highly plastic, but that this plasticity is restricted by the developmental stage of input deprivation, rather than cortical proximity.

Firstly, our univariate analyses at both group and individual levels provides converging and clear evidence for an upright orientation of the face in controls, amputees and one-handers. Contrary to previous neuroimaging studies reporting an inverted facial somatotopy (Servos et al., 1999; Yang et al., 1993; similar to primates Manger et al., 1996; Jain et al., 2001), or a lack of somatotopic organisation (Iannetti et al., 2003; Nguyen et al., 2004; Kopietz et al., 2009), here we found that the forehead representation borders the hand representation, followed by the nose, the lips, and the tongue located most laterally. These discrepancies may arise from the challenge to find a robust and reliable method to stimulate face parts, and thus elicit detectable cortical activation. In this context, it may be argued that it is difficult to achieve isolated execution of specific facial muscles when performing gross movements without impacting sensory processing of neighbouring facial parts. For instance, tongue movements in our paradigm (e.g. touching the roof of the mouth with the tongue), may be best considered as a holistic inner mouth movement, and forehead movements may be best considered as engaging the upper-face. While this critique is valid, it may also be relevant (although to a smaller degree) for passive paradigms, as stimulation can induce waves that propagate through the skin (Manfredi et al., 2012; Sofia and Jones, 2013; Shao et al., 2016) and Pacinian receptors were found to activate during stimulation of remote sites (Edin and Abbs, 1991; Prsa et al., 2019). Despite this caveat, both our univariate and multivariate analyses showed that we were successful in isolating sensorimotor representations of the various movements (forehead, nose, lips, and tongue) within our regions of interest (see Appendix 1—figure 2 for validation of our approach using vibrotactile stimulation). In other words, even if somatosensory information is overlapping across movements, there is still enough distinct information to separate representational patterns. This finding indicates the suitability of our motor paradigm for teasing apart facial somatotopy, allowing us to characterise the face in greater detail than previously attempted. According to the confirmed upright organisation, if cortical remapping of neighbours exists, we would expect to see the forehead shifting towards and into the hand area – not the lips.

When looking at face-to-hand remapping in amputees, where the remapping of cortical neighbours has been the prevalent explanation for PLP, we find little evidence of shifts of locality and remapping towards the deprived hand area for facial parts, including the neighbour (forehead) and hypothesised neighbour (lips). This was further confirmed by the Jaccard analysis showing that amputees’ maps were more similar to the ones of controls than of one-handers in the deprived hemisphere, as well as similar spatial representation of amputees’ phantom thumb movements relative to controls (Appendix 1—figure 3). Our univariate results are further partially supported by our multivariate analysis, where we find no significant changes in dissimilarity of activity patterns across facial parts in amputees’ deprived hand area relative to controls. These results support previous work reporting minimal cortical remapping after amputation (Makin et al., 2013b; Kikkert et al., 2018; Raffin et al., 2012), suggesting that in amputees this area might be functionally unipotent – pertaining to hand-related activity alone and lacking the ability to reorganise after hand loss. However, due to some inconclusive Bayes Factor in our key analyses, we cannot strongly conclude that remapping does not occur in this group. This could be attributed to our relatively small sample (further recruitment was prevented due to Covid-19 restrictions), and in particular, the small proportion of amputees experiencing PLP (11 out of 17). However, pain is not a necessary condition for deprivation-triggered remapping (Recanzone et al., 1992; Wang et al., 1995; Andoh et al., 2020) and vice versa, PLP has been shown to be experienced in absence of remapping (De Nunzio et al., 2018). Moreover, previous studies reporting significant difference between amputees who experienced PLP and those who do not, often employed similar (or smaller) sample sizes (Lotze et al., 2001), indicating that the expected effect of remapping should be substantial.

Our findings seem contradictory to the many previous studies reporting lip remapping in amputees (Flor et al., 1995; Birbaumer et al., 1997; Lotze et al., 2001; Grüsser et al., 2001; Foell et al., 2014; Karl et al., 2001; MacIver et al., 2008). A major difference with regard to these previous studies, which predominantly focused on a single part of the face, lies in the fact that our study was the first to assess the mapping and potential remapping of multiple facial parts at once. By focusing on the lips only, previous designs excluded other facial parts which may have elicited greater activity in certain areas of S1, resulting in a less accurate delineation of the lip-selective representation. Such down-sampling of body maps, therefore, can lead to biased results and interpretation (Muret and Makin, 2021). While our design is not exempt from this limitation, the fact that we assessed other parts of the face may explain why our results diverged from previous findings.

We did find anecdotal evidence for remapping for the tongue within the deprived hand area in amputees. This was a surprising result, as the tongue is not a cortical neighbour to the hand and was not specifically hypothesised to remap in amputees. We also found that amputees demonstrated a different amount of facial information across the two hand areas. Although this multivariate result was not significantly different to that of controls, it demonstrates the plausibility that an inter-hemisphere imbalance may exist to a certain degree, albeit any relationship to PLP is tenuous. While these latter results require further validation, they support our premise that cortical proximity of representations may not be a necessity for remapping to occur. In this context, as our tongue condition could also be classed as an ‘inner mouth’ movement, it is important to note that previous work addressing sensorimotor representations of the mouth and the larynx have demonstrated both lateral and more medial ‘hotspots’ (i.e. a ‘double’ representation Eichert et al., 2020). The potential tongue remapping in amputees, therefore, may reflect changes in the medial mouth representation, but this would need to be investigated further. Moreover, even if the remapping we observed here goes against the theory of cortical proximity, it can still arise from representational proximity at the subcortical level, in particular at the brainstem level (Florence and Kaas, 1995 ; Kambi et al., 2014). While challenging in humans, mapping both the cuneate and trigeminal nuclei would be critical to provide a more complete picture regarding the role of proximity in remapping.

We did find converging and conclusive evidence for cortical remapping of multiple facial parts, both neighbours (forehead) and non-neighbours (lips and tongue) in our congenital one-handed group. Here, the pattern of remapping is strikingly different to that of cortical neighbourhood theories. Specifically, the location of the cortical neighbour – the forehead – is shown to shift away from the deprived hand area, which is subsequently more activated by the lips and the tongue than is the intact hand area. The increase of facial activity in the deprived hand area is in turn supported by our multivariate results, whereby significantly greater information content for the face was found in the deprived hand area for one-handers when compared to controls. One-handers’ deprived hand area, therefore, seems to have increased discriminability between different facial movements. It is difficult to ascertain from our study the drivers of this remapping. It has been suggested previously that remapping within this group may be driven by functionally-relevant behaviour substituting for the loss of the limb (Hahamy et al., 2017; Amoruso et al., 2021). Together with the recent evidence that lip information content is already significant in the hand area of two-handed participants (Muret et al., 2022), compensatory behaviour since developmental stages might further uncover (and even potentiate) this underlying latent activity. Alternative explanations relate to an overall and unspecific release of inhibition (i.e. decreased GABA) in the missing hand area, allowing for latent activity of other body parts to be detected (Hahamy et al., 2017). While speculative, our results tend to support the former, as we report remapping for facial parts which have the ability to compensate for hand function, for example using the lips and/or mouth to manipulate an object, and a lack of remapping into the hand area for those that cannot (the forehead and nose). This increased activity from body parts compensating for hand function may represent a stabilising mechanism, aimed at preserving the integrity of the sensorimotor network and its function (Muret and Makin, 2021). The deprived hand area in one-handers, therefore, may reflect domain specificity – suitable for adapting to multiple body parts (Amoruso et al., 2021), which may preserve the role of the hand area by sustaining its hand-function related information content.

A limitation that should be acknowledged arises from the potential contribution to S1 from M1 activity. Since these cortical areas are neighbours, it is difficult to separate them with certainty. We minimised the contribution of M1 by taking multiple acquisition and pre-processing steps, including the use of anatomical delineation at the individual level, as well as a comprehensive analytical approach (e.g. both univariate and multivariate techniques). Perhaps most convincingly, our RSA evidence for remapping in congenital one-handers but not in amputees were qualitatively stronger in S1 relative to M1. Furthermore, it has been claimed that active movements may produce different cortical maps to those with passive stimulation (Flor et al., 2013; Andoh et al., 2018), and previous work demonstrating a relationship between cortical remapping and PLP tended to use passive stimulation (Flor et al., 1995; Birbaumer et al., 1997; Foell et al., 2014; Karl et al., 2001). However, we do not think this methodological difference underlies our contrasting results as movement-induced lip activity has been shown to demonstrate lip remapping before (Lotze et al., 2001; MacIver et al., 2008; Striem-Amit et al., 2018), indicating that an active paradigm is suitable for assessing cortical remapping (if it exists). Conversely, a recent study using passive lip stimulation in amputees did not find any evidence for remapping (Philip et al., 2017). Moreover, we recently ran a study which found that S1 topography and multivariate representational structure are similar across active and passive paradigms (Sanders et al., 2019) (see Appendix 1—figure 2 for a comparison between active and passive facial stimulation). In our view, the choice of an active paradigm is the most reflective of naturalistic tactile inputs in everyday life. Together with robust evidence for remapping in one-handers using all the methods tested here, our choice of active paradigm is clearly suitable to identify topographic organisation and remapping, and is practically accessible and translatable to fMRI designs.

To conclude, both our univariate and multivariate analyses found consistent evidence for a complex pattern of face remapping in congenital one-handers, in line with the theory suggesting remapping in this group reflects compensatory behaviour (Muret and Makin, 2021). This is in contrast to amputees, where we find little evidence for cortical remapping, indicating a relative stability of both the hand and face representation after limb loss. By and large, remapping measures were not linked to PLP. Our results call for a reassessment of traditional remapping theories based on cortical proximity, and future research into potential remapping of the inner mouth representation after limb loss.

The data generated and analysed during this study is available to the public on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/xq3am/).

1. 1. Root V
   2. Muret D
   3. Arribas M
   4. Amoruso E
   5. Thornton J
   6. Tarall-Jozwiak A
   7. Tracey I
   8. Makin TR

   (2021) Open Science Framework

   ID 10.17605/OSF.IO/XQ3AM. Complex pattern of facial remapping in somatosensory cortex following congenital but not acquired hand loss.

   https://osf.io/xq3am/

1. 1. Amoruso E
   2. Kromm M
   3. Spampinato D
   4. Kop B
   5. Muret D
   6. Rothwell J
   7. Rocchi L
   8. Makin TR

   (2021) Stimulating the deprived motor “ hand ” area causes facial muscle responses in one-handers

   Brain Stimulation 14:347–350.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2021.01.022

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. Software

   1. Andersson JLR
   2. Jenkinson M
   3. Smith S

   (2010)

   Non-linear registration, aka spatial normalization

   FMRIB Technical Report TR07JA2.
3. 1. Andoh J
   2. Milde C
   3. Tsao JW
   4. Flor H

   (2018) Cortical plasticity as a basis of phantom limb pain: fact or fiction?

   Neuroscience 387:85–91.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.11.015

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Andoh J
   2. Milde C
   3. Diers M
   4. Bekrater-Bodmann R
   5. Trojan J
   6. Fuchs X
   7. Becker S
   8. Desch S
   9. Flor H

   (2020) Assessment of cortical reorganization and preserved function in phantom limb pain: a methodological perspective

   Scientific Reports 10:11504.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68206-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Birbaumer N
   2. Lutzenberger W
   3. Montoya P
   4. Larbig W
   5. Unertl K
   6. Töpfner S
   7. Grodd W
   8. Taub E
   9. Flor H

   (1997) Effects of regional anesthesia on phantom limb pain are mirrored in changes in cortical reorganization

   The Journal of Neuroscience 17:5503–5508.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-14-05503.1997

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Buonomano DV
   2. Merzenich MM

   (1998) Cortical plasticity: from synapses to maps

   Annual Review of Neuroscience 21:149–186.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.21.1.149

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Cerkevich CM
   2. Qi HX
   3. Kaas JH

   (2014) Corticocortical projections to representations of the teeth, tongue, and face in somatosensory area 3B of macaques

   The Journal of Comparative Neurology 522:546–572.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.23426

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cusick CG
   2. Wall JT
   3. Kaas JH

   (1986) Representations of the face, teeth and oral cavity in areas 3B and 1 of somatosensory cortex in squirrel monkeys

   Brain Research 370:359–364.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(86)90494-4

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. De Nunzio AM
   2. Schweisfurth MA
   3. Ge N
   4. Falla D
   5. Hahne J
   6. Gödecke K
   7. Petzke F
   8. Siebertz M
   9. Dechent P
   10. Weiss T
   11. Flor H
   12. Graimann B
   13. Aszmann OC
   14. Farina D

   (2018) Relieving phantom limb pain with multimodal sensory-motor training

   Journal of Neural Engineering 15:066022.

   https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aae271

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Diedrichsen J
    2. Yokoi A
    3. Arbuckle SA

    (2018) Pattern component modeling: a flexible approach for understanding the representational structure of brain activity patterns

    NeuroImage 180:119–133.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.051

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Dienes Z

    (2014) Using bayes to get the most out of non-significant results

    Frontiers in Psychology 5:781.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Disbrow E
    2. Hinkley LB
    3. Roberts TP

    (2003) Ipsilateral representation of oral structures in human anterior parietal somatosensory cortex and integration of inputs across the midline

    J Comp Neurol 467:487–495.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.10935

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Draganski B
    2. Moser T
    3. Lummel N
    4. Gänssbauer S
    5. Bogdahn U
    6. Haas F
    7. May A

    (2006) Decrease of thalamic gray matter following limb amputation

    NeuroImage 31:951–957.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Dreyer DA
    2. Loe PR
    3. Metz CB
    4. Whitsel BL

    (1975) Representation of head and face in postcentral gyrus of the macaque

    Journal of Neurophysiology 38:714–733.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1975.38.3.714

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Edin BB
    2. Abbs JH

    (1991) Finger movement responses of cutaneous mechanoreceptors in the dorsal skin of the human hand

    Journal of Neurophysiology 65:657–670.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1991.65.3.657

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Eichert N
    2. Papp D
    3. Mars RB
    4. Watkins KE

    (2020) Mapping human laryngeal motor cortex during vocalization

    Cerebral Cortex 30:6254–6269.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa182

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Flor H
    2. Elbert T
    3. Knecht S
    4. Wienbruch C
    5. Pantev C
    6. Birbaumer N
    7. Larbig W
    8. Taub E

    (1995) Phantom-limb pain as a perceptual correlate of cortical reorganization following arm amputation

    Nature 375:482–484.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/375482a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Flor H
    2. Nikolajsen L
    3. Staehelin Jensen T

    (2006) Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity?

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 7:873–881.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1991

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Flor H
    2. Diers M
    3. Andoh J

    (2013) The neural basis of phantom limb pain

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17:307–308.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Florence SL
    2. Kaas JH

    (1995) Large-Scale reorganization at multiple levels of the somatosensory pathway follows therapeutic amputation of the hand in monkeys

    The Journal of Neuroscience 15:8083–8095.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-12-08083.1995

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Foell J
    2. Bekrater-Bodmann R
    3. Diers M
    4. Flor H

    (2014) Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain: brain changes and the role of body representation

    European Journal of Pain 18:729–739.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00433.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Friston KJ
    2. Fletcher P
    3. Josephs O
    4. Holmes A
    5. Rugg MD
    6. Turner R

    (1998) Event-related fmri: characterizing differential responses

    NeuroImage 7:30–40.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1997.0306

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Glasser MF
    2. Coalson TS
    3. Robinson EC
    4. Hacker CD
    5. Harwell J
    6. Yacoub E
    7. Ugurbil K
    8. Andersson J
    9. Beckmann CF
    10. Jenkinson M
    11. Smith SM
    12. Van Essen DC

    (2016) A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex

    Nature 536:171–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18933

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Graziano MSA
    2. Aflalo TN

    (2007) Mapping behavioral repertoire onto the cortex

    Neuron 56:239–251.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.09.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Greve DN
    2. Fischl B

    (2009) Accurate and robust brain image alignment using boundary-based registration

    NeuroImage 48:63–72.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.060

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Grüsser SM
    2. Winter C
    3. Mühlnickel W
    4. Denke C
    5. Karl A
    6. Villringer K
    7. Flor H

    (2001) The relationship of perceptual phenomena and cortical reorganization in upper extremity amputees

    Neuroscience 102:263–272.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4522(00)00491-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hahamy A
    2. Macdonald SN
    3. van den Heiligenberg F
    4. Kieliba P
    5. Emir U
    6. Malach R
    7. Johansen-Berg H
    8. Brugger P
    9. Culham JC
    10. Makin TR

    (2017) Representation of multiple body parts in the missing-hand territory of congenital one-handers

    Current Biology 27:1350–1355.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.03.053

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Hahamy A
    2. Makin TR

    (2019) Remapping in cerebral and cerebellar cortices is not restricted by somatotopy

    The Journal of Neuroscience 39:9328–9342.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2599-18.2019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Hoshiyama M
    2. Kakigi R
    3. Koyama S
    4. Kitamura Y
    5. Shimojo M
    6. Watanabe S

    (1996) Somatosensory evoked magnetic fields following stimulation of the lip in humans

    Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 100:96–104.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(95)00241-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Iannetti GD
    2. Porro CA
    3. Pantano P
    4. Romanelli PL
    5. Galeotti F
    6. Cruccu G

    (2003) Representation of different trigeminal divisions within the primary and secondary human somatosensory cortex

    NeuroImage 19:906–912.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00139-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Jain NJ
    2. Catania KC
    3. Kaas JH

    (1997) Deactivation and reactivation of somatosensory cortex after dorsal spinal cord injury

    Nature 386:495–498.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/386495a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Jain N
    2. Qi HX
    3. Catania KC
    4. Kaas JH

    (2001) Anatomic correlates of the face and oral cavity representations in the somatosensory cortical area 3B of monkeys

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 429:455–468.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9861(20010115)429:3<455::aid-cne7>3.0.co;2-f

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Jenkinson M
    2. Bannister P
    3. Brady M
    4. Smith S

    (2002) Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images

    NeuroImage 17:825–841.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(02)91132-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kambi N
    2. Halder P
    3. Rajan R
    4. Arora V
    5. Chand P
    6. Arora M
    7. Jain N

    (2014) Large-Scale reorganization of the somatosensory cortex following spinal cord injuries is due to brainstem plasticity

    Nature Communications 5:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4602

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Karl A
    2. Birbaumer N
    3. Lutzenberger W
    4. Cohen LG
    5. Flor H

    (2001) Reorganization of motor and somatosensory cortex in upper extremity amputees with phantom limb pain

    The Journal of Neuroscience 21:3609–3618.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-10-03609.2001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Kass RE
    2. Raftery AE

    (1995) Bayes factors

    Journal of the American Statistical Association 90:773–795.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kikkert S
    2. Kolasinski J
    3. Jbabdi S
    4. Tracey I
    5. Beckmann CF
    6. Johansen-Berg H
    7. Makin TR

    (2016) Revealing the neural fingerprints of a missing hand

    eLife 5:e15292.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15292

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kikkert S
    2. Mezue M
    3. Henderson Slater D
    4. Johansen-Berg H
    5. Tracey I
    6. Makin TR

    (2017) Motor correlates of phantom limb pain

    Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 95:29–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.07.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kikkert S
    2. Johansen-Berg H
    3. Tracey I
    4. Makin TR

    (2018) Reaffirming the link between chronic phantom limb pain and maintained missing hand representation

    Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 106:174–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.05.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kopietz R
    2. Sakar V
    3. Albrecht J
    4. Kleemann AM
    5. Schöpf V
    6. Yousry I
    7. Linn J
    8. Fesl G
    9. Wiesmann M

    (2009) Activation of primary and secondary somatosensory regions following tactile stimulation of the face

    Klinische Neuroradiologie 19:135–144.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-009-8022-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Limakatso K
    2. Bedwell GJ
    3. Madden VJ
    4. Parker R

    (2019) The prevalence and risk factors for phantom limb pain in people with amputations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy 8:17.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/19008961

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Lin LD
    2. Sessle BJ

    (1994) Functional properties of single neurons in the primate face primary somatosensory cortex. III. Modulation of responses to peripheral stimuli during trained orofacial motor behaviors

    Journal of Neurophysiology 71:2401–2413.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1994.71.6.2401

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Lotze M
    2. Flor H
    3. Grodd W
    4. Larbig W
    5. Birbaumer N

    (2001) Phantom movements and pain. an fMRI study in upper limb amputees

    Brain 124:2268–2277.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/124.11.2268

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Lyu Y
    2. Guo X
    3. Bekrater-Bodmann R
    4. Flor H
    5. Tong S

    (2016) Phantom limb perception interferes with motor imagery after unilateral upper-limb amputation

    Scientific Reports 6:21100.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. MacIver K
    2. Lloyd DM
    3. Kelly S
    4. Roberts N
    5. Nurmikko T

    (2008) Phantom limb pain, cortical reorganization and the therapeutic effect of mental imagery

    Brain 131:2181–2191.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn124

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Makin T
    2. Cramer AO
    3. Scholz J
    4. Hahamy A
    5. Henderson Slater D
    6. Tracey I
    7. Johansen-Berg H

    (2013a) Deprivation-related and use-dependent plasticity go hand in hand

    eLife 2:e01273.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.01273

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Makin TR
    2. Scholz J
    3. Filippini N
    4. Henderson Slater D
    5. Tracey I
    6. Johansen-Berg H

    (2013b) Phantom pain is associated with preserved structure and function in the former hand area

    Nature Communications 4:1570–1578.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2571

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Makin TR
    2. Scholz J
    3. Henderson Slater D
    4. Johansen-Berg H
    5. Tracey I

    (2015) Reassessing cortical reorganization in the primary sensorimotor cortex following arm amputation

    Brain 138:2140–2146.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awv161

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Makin T.R
    2. Bensmaia SJ

    (2017) Stability of sensory topographies in adult cortex

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21:195–204.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Makin TR

    (2021) Phantom limb pain: thinking outside the (mirror) box

    Brain 144:1929–1932.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab139

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Manfredi LR
    2. Baker AT
    3. Elias DO
    4. Dammann JF
    5. Zielinski MC
    6. Polashock VS
    7. Bensmaia SJ

    (2012) The effect of surface wave propagation on neural responses to vibration in primate glabrous skin

    PLOS ONE 7:e31203.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031203

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Manger PR
    2. Woods TM
    3. Jones EG

    (1995) Representation of the face and intraoral structures in area 3B of the squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureus) somatosensory cortex, with special reference to the ipsilateral representation

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 362:597–607.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903620412

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Manger PR
    2. Woods TM
    3. Jones EG

    (1996) Representation of face and intra-oral structures in area 3B of macaque monkey somatosensory cortex

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 371:513–521.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19960805)371:4<513::AID-CNE2>3.0.CO;2-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Merzenich MM
    2. Kaas JH
    3. Sur M
    4. Lin CS

    (1978) Double representation of the body surface within cytoarchitectonic areas 3B and 1 in “ Si ” in the owl monkey (Aotus trivirgatus)

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 181:41–73.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901810104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Mogilner A
    2. Nomura M
    3. Ribary U
    4. Jagow R
    5. Lado F
    6. Rusinek H
    7. Llinás R

    (1994) Neuromagnetic studies of the lip area of primary somatosensory cortex in humans: evidence for an oscillotopic organization

    Experimental Brain Research 99:137–147.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00241418

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Moulton EA
    2. Pendse G
    3. Morris S
    4. Aiello-Lammens M
    5. Becerra L
    6. Borsook D

    (2009) Segmentally arranged somatotopy within the face representation of human primary somatosensory cortex

    Human Brain Mapping 30:757–765.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20541

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Muret D
    2. Makin TR

    (2021) The homeostatic homunculus: rethinking deprivation-triggered reorganisation

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 67:115–122.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2020.08.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Muret D
    2. Root V
    3. Kieliba P
    4. Clode D
    5. Makin TR

    (2022) Beyond body maps: information content of specific body parts is distributed across the somatosensory homunculus

    Cell Reports 38:110523.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110523

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Nardone R
    2. Höller Y
    3. Brigo F
    4. Seidl M
    5. Christova M
    6. Bergmann J
    7. Golaszewski S
    8. Trinka E

    (2013) Functional brain reorganization after spinal cord injury: systematic review of animal and human studies

    Brain Research 1504:58–73.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.12.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Nevalainen P
    2. Ramstad R
    3. Isotalo E
    4. Haapanen MLL
    5. Lauronen L

    (2006) Trigeminal somatosensory evoked magnetic fields to tactile stimulation

    Clinical Neurophysiology 117:2007–2015.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.05.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Nguyen BT
    2. Tran TD
    3. Hoshiyama M
    4. Inui K
    5. Kakigi R

    (2004) Face representation in the human primary somatosensory cortex

    Neuroscience Research 50:227–232.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2004.07.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Nili H
    2. Wingfield C
    3. Walther A
    4. Su L
    5. Marslen-Wilson W
    6. Kriegeskorte N

    (2014) A toolbox for representational similarity analysis

    PLOS Computational Biology 10:e1003553.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003553

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Ortiz-Catalan M

    (2018) The stochastic entanglement and phantom motor execution hypotheses: a theoretical framework for the origin and treatment of phantom limb pain

    Frontiers in Neurology 9:748.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00748

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Penfield W

    (1950) The cerebral cortex of man: clinical study of localization of function

    Academic Medicine 25:375.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-195009000-00037

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Philip BA
    2. Frey SH

    (2014) Compensatory changes accompanying chronic forced use of the nondominant hand by unilateral amputees

    The Journal of Neuroscience 34:3622–3631.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3770-13.2014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Philip B
    2. Valyear K
    3. Cirstea C
    4. Frey S

    (2017) Reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex after upper limb amputation may lack functional significance

    Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 98:e103.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.331

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Pons TP
    2. Garraghty PE
    3. Ommaya AK
    4. Kaas JH
    5. Taub E
    6. Mishkin M

    (1991) Massive cortical reorganization after sensory deafferentation in adult macaques

    Science 252:1857–1860.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1843843

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Prsa M
    2. Morandell K
    3. Cuenu G
    4. Huber D

    (2019) Feature-selective encoding of substrate vibrations in the forelimb somatosensory cortex

    Nature 567:384–388.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1015-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Raffin E
    2. Mattout J
    3. Reilly KT
    4. Giraux P

    (2012) Disentangling motor execution from motor imagery with the phantom limb

    Brain 135:582–595.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awr337

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Raffin E
    2. Richard N
    3. Giraux P
    4. Reilly KT

    (2016) Primary motor cortex changes after amputation correlate with phantom limb pain and the ability to move the phantom limb

    NeuroImage 130:134–144.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.063

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Ramachandran VS
    2. Hirstein W

    (1998) The perception of phantom limbs

    The D. O. Hebb Lecture. Brain 121:1603–1630.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/121.9.1603

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Recanzone GH
    2. Merzenich MM
    3. Jenkins WM
    4. Grajski KA
    5. Dinse HR

    (1992) Topographic reorganization of the hand representation in cortical area 3B owl monkeys trained in a frequency-discrimination task

    Journal of Neurophysiology 67:1031–1056.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1992.67.5.1031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Roux FE
    2. Djidjeli I
    3. Durand JB

    (2018) Functional architecture of the somatosensory homunculus detected by electrostimulation

    The Journal of Physiology 596:941–956.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/JP275243

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Ruben J
    2. Schwiemann J
    3. Deuchert M
    4. Meyer R
    5. Krause T
    6. Curio G
    7. Villringer K
    8. Kurth R
    9. Villringer A

    (2001) Somatotopic organization of human secondary somatosensory cortex

    Cerebral Cortex 11:463–473.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/11.5.463

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. Preprint

    1. Sanders ZB
    2. Wesselink DB
    3. Dempsey-Jones H
    4. Makin TR

    (2019) Similar Somatotopy for Active and Passive Digit Representation in Primary Somatosensory Cortex

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/754648

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Sato K
    2. Nariai T
    3. Tanaka Y
    4. Maehara T
    5. Miyakawa N
    6. Sasaki S
    7. Momose-Sato Y
    8. Ohno K

    (2005) Functional representation of the finger and face in the human somatosensory cortex: intraoperative intrinsic optical imaging

    NeuroImage 25:1292–1301.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.049

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Schieber MH

    (2001) Constraints on somatotopic organization in the primary motor cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 86:2125–2143.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.2001.86.5.2125

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Schwartz TH
    2. Chen LM
    3. Friedman RM
    4. Spencer DD
    5. Roe AW

    (2004) Intraoperative optical imaging of human face cortical topography: a case study

    Neuroreport 15:1527–1531.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000131006.59315.2f

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Servos P
    2. Engel SA
    3. Gati J
    4. Menon R

    (1999) Fmri evidence for an inverted face representation in human somatosensory cortex

    Neuroreport 10:1393–1395.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199905140-00002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Shao Y
    2. Hayward V
    3. Visell Y

    (2016) Spatial patterns of cutaneous vibration during whole-hand haptic interactions

    PNAS 113:4188–4193.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520866113

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Smith SM

    (2002) Fast robust automated brain extraction

    Human Brain Mapping 17:143–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10062

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Smith SM
    2. Nichols TE

    (2009) Threshold-free cluster enhancement: addressing problems of smoothing, threshold dependence and localisation in cluster inference

    NeuroImage 44:83–98.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Sofia KO
    2. Jones LA

    (2013) Mechanical and psychophysical studies of surface wave propagation during vibrotactile stimulation

    IEEE Transactions on Haptics 6:320–329.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2013.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Sonar HA
    2. Huang JL
    3. Paik J

    (2021) Soft touch using soft pneumatic actuator–skin as a wearable haptic feedback device

    Advanced Intelligent Systems 3:2000168.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.202000168

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Striem-Amit E
    2. Vannuscorps G
    3. Caramazza A

    (2018) Plasticity based on compensatory effector use in the association but not primary sensorimotor cortex of people born without hands

    PNAS 115:7801–7806.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803926115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Sur M
    2. Nelson RJ
    3. Kaas JH

    (1982) Representations of the body surface in cortical areas 3B and 1 of squirrel monkeys: comparisons with other primates

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 211:177–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902110207

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Valyear KF
    2. Philip BA
    3. Cirstea CM
    4. Chen P-W
    5. Baune NA
    6. Marchal N
    7. Frey SH

    (2020) Interhemispheric transfer of post-amputation cortical plasticity within the human somatosensory cortex

    NeuroImage 206:116291.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116291

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Walther A
    2. Nili H
    3. Ejaz N
    4. Alink A
    5. Kriegeskorte N
    6. Diedrichsen J

    (2016) Reliability of dissimilarity measures for multi-voxel pattern analysis

    NeuroImage 137:188–200.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Wang X
    2. Merzenlch MM
    3. Sameshlma K
    4. Jenkins WM

    (1995) Timing of tactile stimulation

    ScienceDirect 378:71–75.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/378071a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. Software

    1. Wesselink DB
    2. Maimon-Mor RO

    (2018)

    RSA toolbox extension for FSL

    RSA.
91. 1. Wesselink DB
    2. Ejaz N

    (2019) Obtaining and maintaining cortical hand representation as evidenced from acquired and congenital handlessness

    eLife 8:e37227.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37227

    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Wetzels R
    2. Matzke D
    3. Lee MD
    4. Rouder JN
    5. Iverson GJ
    6. Wagenmakers EJ

    (2011) Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: an empirical comparison using 855 T tests

    Perspectives on Psychological Science 6:291–298.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406923

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Wiech K
    2. Jbabdi S
    3. Lin CS
    4. Andersson J
    5. Tracey I

    (2014) Differential structural and resting state connectivity between insular subdivisions and other pain-related brain regions

    Pain 155:2047–2055.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2014.07.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Wiestler T
    2. Diedrichsen J

    (2013) Skill learning strengthens cortical representations of motor sequences

    eLife 2013:e00801.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00801

    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Willoughby WR
    2. Thoenes K
    3. Bolding M

    (2020) Somatotopic arrangement of the human primary somatosensory cortex derived from functional magnetic resonance imaging

    Frontiers in Neuroscience 14:598482.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.598482

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Winkler AM
    2. Ridgway GR
    3. Webster MA
    4. Smith SM
    5. Nichols TE

    (2014) Permutation inference for the general linear model

    NeuroImage 92:381–397.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.060

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Yang TT
    2. Gallen CC
    3. Schwartz BJ
    4. Bloom FE

    (1993) Noninvasive somatosensory homunculus mapping in humans by using a large-array biomagnetometer

    PNAS 90:3098–3102.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.90.7.3098

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Victoria Root

   1. WIN Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
   2. Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom
   3. Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (CBU), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Dollyane Muret

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0500-3206

2. Dollyane Muret

   Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Victoria Root

   For correspondence

   dollyane.muret@inserm.fr

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2626-654X

3. Maite Arribas

   1. Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom
   2. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Elena Amoruso

   1. Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom
   2. Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (CBU), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – original draft, Project administration

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. John Thornton

   Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Aurelie Tarall-Jozwiak

   Queen Mary’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Irene Tracey

   WIN Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Supervision, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Tamar R Makin

   1. Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom
   2. Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (CBU), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
   3. Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   Senior editor, eLife

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5816-8979

• 985

  views

• 129

  downloads

• 9

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.