Talk:Alien hand syndrome

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 15 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aa6947, Kaitlingoy, Dp5207.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization
I moved this to alien hand syndrome, as there is no reason for Hand and Syndrome to have capitals. Unfortunately, some Wikipedia lists have disease names that are all capitals. This is not justified. JFW | T@lk  16:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Short story
I remember a short story by SF writer Theodore Sturgeon called "Bianca's Hands" in which a man falls in love with a woman's hands who then take on a life of their own during her sleep and attempt to strangle him. Don't recall though if it is specifically stated that this is a case of Alien hand syndrome or if this is just how I remember it. Can someone confirm / deny ? Also, I'm new to Wiki, is this worth mentionning in Cultural references ? Thanks. [Helix]

Cultural References
Wouldn't this also describe Doc Ock in Spiderman2? If we're counting malevolent prostheses as alien hands, certainly his "tentacles" qualify. -t

Alien hand versus Anarchic hand
Alien hand and anarchic hand are two distinct neurological conditions caused by lesions to different, though related, parts of the brain. The description of alien hand actually appears to mix both alien and anarchic hand.

In alien hand, a sufferer has normal sensation but lacks the sense of "ownership" of the affected limb i.e. they have an impaired sense of their own body.

In anarchic hand, a sufferer has a limb that appears to act without their will.

We need an expert opinion on this one.

I have written extensively about this condition and have described several cases in the medical literature. It is my opinion that alien hand and anarchic hand are basically two different terms for the same syndrome. The original description by Brion and Jedynak in the French literature was: "le signe de la main etrangere", so you can translate from there as you will. The essential issue is the observation and description of the observed clinical phenomena which are really quite striking and difficult to mistake. There are a large variety of different terms that have come to the fore (eg. diagonistic apraxia as a term for "intermanual conflict") but the variation in terminology just serves to obscure the essential observations of the behavior and, more importantly, the experience of the patient as gleaned from their introspective verbal reports of how the whole situation feels. [GG] Gary.goldberg.md (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

here's a link to an article that is quite clear they are separate conditions. http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=1354-6805&volume=3&issue=3&spage=191

The point of differentiation proposed in this paper between "anarchic" and "alien" is that the "anarchic" hand does things that are "extravolitional" while the "alien" hand does not feel a part of oneself. This might appear to be a helpful distinction but really would end up causing a lot of confusion since the term "alien" and "anarchic" have already been heavily used in the literature as referring to a hand that acts without a corresponding sense of "agency" felt by its owner. In most cases of what is defined as "alien" hand, the hand is clearly identified as an integral part of the patient's body--that is the difficult part for the patient: that is, that a hand they feel is actually a part of them is doing things over which they do not feel control. Again, I actually think that this paper proposes to do something that would cause a lot more confusion in the literature. There is already a term for not recognizing one's body parts as one's own and that is "asomatognosia". So why do we need another term for this phenomenon? Referring to "alien" hand as a hand that is not recognized as one's own would be totally redundant. Asomatognosia is something that is observed in association with parietal lobe lesions and is a fairly well-recognized phenomenon. The "alien/anarchic" hand, however, is a whole different ball of wax: **a hand that one feels is one's own is doing things that one does not feel one is doing.**  That is the central feature described in the literature by most authors for both "alien" and "anarchic" hands. [GG] Gary.goldberg.md (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

References added to article
I have added an extensive set of references to this article most of which are drawn from mainstream medical journals. I would appreciate if we could now rescind the "warning" at the top of the page regarding a lack of references to reliable sources. Thank you. It is clear that this is now a well-accepted clinical observation that has been extensively observed and documented. [GG] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary.goldberg.md (talk • contribs) 22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Causes and Treatment
There is no treatment as of yet. Yet keeping the hand from being idle seems to help.

How common is it?
Just wondering does anyone know how common the syndrome is? Obviously not very, but what about an order of magnitude estimate - how many "sufferers" in a million people? one, ten, only one per ten million? It would be a very interesting piece of information for the article, imho. Deuar 20:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are less than 100 reported cases in the medical literature. Now, does this mean that this is the total number of times that this has appeared?  Probably not.  The question is how often is it seen and recognized as such and how often does it go unnoticed or "hidden".  I don't think anyone can really answer that question.  I see a lot of patients with various forms of brain damage and am aware and looking for this problem.  I might see 3 or 4 clear-cut cases a year out of hundreds of patients seen during that period.  It is not a common observation, but neither is it something that would never be seen by a typical neurologist or physiatrist taking care of people with stroke and brain injury. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.158.72.157 (talk • contribs).

Strangelove
Is it accurate to say that Dr. Strangelove, in the movie of the same name, suffers from AHS? I thought his "alien" hand was a spring-loaded prosthesis, not a natural hand he couldn't consciously control.67.158.79.211 00:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it was a gloved hand. cyclosarin 15:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The movie was pretty accurate to the time period it was set in. I see no reason why that should have been a prosthetic limb at all. I don't recall anything that would imply it was supposed to be prosthetic. --Nofxjunkee 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Team episode
I remember there was an A-Team episode where Murdock insisted his left hand "Lefty" to have a will of its own. I don't remember which episode it was though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.202.167.25 (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * S03E21 “Waste ‘Em!” Synetech (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Spoiler about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
(the following quote is a spoiler about Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows)

In Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, the magical hand previously given to Wormtail by Voldemort to replace his severed hand strangles him to death when Wormtail betrays Voldemort.

Shouldn't this quote be removed or t a spoiler warning be written there? I am about to start reading the book and now I know more than I wanted to ...
 * I don't think this really qualifies as much of a spoiler, as he's been reduced to a minor character in this book and his death is really pretty inconsequential. Also, his being killed by Voldemort for some reason or other isn't really all that unexpected.


 * One other thing, remember to sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes. 216.228.20.138 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncontrollable hands in fiction...
...are not examples alien hand syndrone. The article is clear that AHS is a real phenomena that is usually caused by some sort of brain damage, and the vast majority of the references in the Cultural References section are of some sort of possession of arms or hands by some apparition. In fact, the only real example of AHS in the section from what I've seen so far is Dr. Strangelove. The original section lede was also clearly a work of original research and has been removed. If no one objects, this section will be culled or outright removed. hateless 07:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Examples from fiction which should not be included in this article include:
 * Possessed limbs, or any examples with a magical or paranormal explanations
 * Transplanted or removed limbs that gain a 'life of their own'
 * Examples referencing 'sufficiently advanced technology', including genetic modification or robot limbs (e.g. Doc Ock, etc.)
 * &mdash; Spudtater (talk • contribs) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I really think it is too bad that the complete list of cultural references to which various folks were adding was removed from this article. It was actually one of the more interesting and entertaining parts of the article. The fact is that there is no clear line that can be drawn between the factual truth and the manner in which the imagination creates a fictional characterization that overlaps with the truth. In fact, in the case of the alien hand syndrome, the facts can actually be somewhat stranger than the fiction. The idea that there can be purposeful action generated in the human limb without obvious participation of a human agent producing the volitional drive is the common theme both for the observations that are made in patients with alien hand syndrome and for the various fictional adaptations that play on this distinction between consciously perceived "agency" and "ownership." Therefore, particularly with a community effort such as Wikipedia, participation in contributing examples from cross-cultural sources of situations and characters that play on this distinction really should not be excluded from the conversation, but, on the contrary, makes it a whole lot more interesting and tied in. [GG] Gary.goldberg.md (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I also wrote the original lede for this section of the article which really did not present any original research at all. I am not sure where that perception came from. The lede simply notes that, while the phenomenon of alien hand syndrome has only recently been recognized in humans with a specific type of stroke (and some other pathologies), a similar situation in which a limb acts outside of the will of its apparent owner, has been a part of folk lore and various cultural venues for a long time. That is a fact that heightens the interest in this clinical condition. And it is a situation that captures our interest because it challenges some basic philosophic assumptions about the nature of action and its link to an identifiable actor who is the causal source and controller of the action. And can therefore be held responsible for the consequences of the action. Having published several articles on alien hand syndrome in the medical literature, I thought that this link that crosses boundaries between scientific fact and various conceptually associated products of the human imagination, was an extremely interesting one which deserved recognition and a rightful place here. On the other hand, if it if necessary according to those exerting their authority here to be 'pure' about this, we might start a separate topic that could be hot-linked to this article entitled "Dissociation between Embodied Will and Action" and then could have a list of fictional sources that operate with this theme. [GG] Gary.goldberg.md (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:OR for a complete discussion on what original research means in this encyclopedia project. My general rule of thumb is that if a skeptical and critical reader is thinking "oh really? says who?", then it's a suspect piece of writing. Your preface made me think that after every sentence. As stated in WP:V, there is no room for self-evident ideas in Wikipedia, everything must be verifiable as fact by another source. As for the rest of the culled content from that section, it was simply off-topic: just because symptoms of one disease is portrayed in a movie doesn't mean that movie gets mention in every possible disorder article that has that symptom. Perhaps if you are fascinated with the idea of uncontrollable limbs, it may find a better home in another article, if it can pass WP:V. hateless 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you may say that that is the policy, but it is clear that Wikipedia is packed full of all kinds of opinions and unsupported statements. And a truly "skeptical and critical reader" would likely dump 3/4 of what is published as "fact" on Wikipedia.  This becomes a problem when those who have no direct experience or expertise with a subject suddenly envisage themselves as authorities and become over-exuberant editors.

A quick look at the WP entry on Google's "Knol" clearly demonstrates that one approach to establishing "fact" on Wikipedia is to quote someone else's opinion about something and call that a "citation" that establishes "verifiability as fact". By they way, is there such a thing as an appeal process on Wikipedia?? Or are those who impose their authoritative judgments beyond question. Gary.goldberg.md (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first line in Wikipedia's verifiability policy is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Like it or not, an encyclopedia in a wiki environment does not work if it reflects what editors feel is truth, but it can work if it acts as a summary for existing published material. While most of us like to keep the encyclopedia factual, we recognize we have no place as arbiters of fact, and it's a much fairer process to just summarize what everyone else says. As for an appeals process, there's plenty, but there's only one editorial body, and that's us. You better start crafting some arguments that would impress your fellow editors. One thing that won't work is denying Wikipedia's policies or having a cynical view of the encyclopedia in the first place. hateless 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

S. Lem's Peace on Earth referrence
What the main character (Ijon Tichy) suffers is probably not exactly 'Alien hand syndrome'. His condition has been caused by military robots testing a new weapon which causes his brain hemispheres to disconnect. Mostly the book deals with something like I. T.'s subconcious and instincts controlling his left hand, and sometimes leg.

Mariusz "Kot" Butrykowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.25.158.97 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The article now contains references to support the discussion
Can we remove the designation of this article as unreferenced? Gary.goldberg.md (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. Although the list of references is helpful, the assertions made in the article need to be directly linked to specific sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Speaking Mind vs the Silent Drawing Mind
Years ago I seem to recall a 1980s (?) PBS program on the mind by Philip Zimbardo that explored the perceptions of people with a split corpus callosum, whereby the subject's eyes are covered in such a way so that the left brain hemisphere registers one image, while the right hemisphere registers another.


 * For one hemisphere, when shown an image, the person could say what they saw. When the other hemisphere was shown an image, the person said that they saw nothing.


 * However, the hand of the hemisphere shown the image could draw a rough sketch, which the speaking side could then see, interpret, and then describe from the sketch.

It seems possible for communication with the "alien hand" to occur by placing a pencil in its grasp and asking questions, which can then be answered in visual form.

Pieces of Mind

 * Scientific American Frontiers
 * Season 7, Episode 3: Pieces of Mind, First Aired: 1997-01-22 


 * 60-second preview video clip:
 * http://www.actadvantage.org/productPreview.do?no=10749S


 * Supplements discussion of the structure and functions of the cerebral cortex. Features Dartmouth University’s Michael Gazzaniga, and Joe, an epileptic who had his corpus callosum severed to stop daily seizures. Cutting the corpus callosum prevented the spread of the seizures from Joe’s right hemisphere to his left, but it also prevented the two hemispheres from communicating with each other. Gazzaniga outlines his classic “split-brain” research paradigm. Hosted by Alan Alda.

Smart but Lazy

 * http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/split-brain.html


 * To the casual observer, the early split brain patients appeared perfectly normal. They could talk and read and had no problems recognizing the world about them. The seizures gone, they seemed happy, alert and healthy.


 * Then Gazzaniga made a startling discovery. If the patient held up something like a comb or a coffee cup in his left hand, he couldn't speak its name. Transferred to the right hand -- no trouble at all. 




 * The right cerebral hemisphere wasn't an imbecile, after all. It was highly intelligent. And it was still blessed with imagination and a sense of humor. Illiterate, true! And it was mute. But it was as nimble in abstract geometric logic as the dominant left cerebral hemisphere was with words. It had learned early in life to specialize in certain kinds of memory. And it was word- lazy. 


 * Before the corpus callosum had been cut, if the right hemisphere needed a word, all it had to do was put in a call to the left side. Now it was on its own. It would have to learn to hang on to information coming in from the external world. Indeed, it could do that, too. Within six months, the right cerebral hemisphere was sell on its way to literacy. The day would come when a split brain patient might even read two completely different books at the very same time. In a world of words, the operation might have certain advantages. 


 * DMahalko (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Discovering Psychology, Episode 14
Aha, here is the video with Philip Zimbardo, and it is from 1990. The program is 30 minutes long, and split-brain discussion occurs about 20 minutes into the program.

Video link: (requires registration) http://www.learner.org/resources/series138.html?pop=yes&pid=1511#

Discovering Psychology: Updated Edition Produced by WGBH Boston with the American Psychological Association. 1990, 2001.

''Highlighting major new developments in the field, this updated edition of Discovering Psychology offers high school and college students, and teachers of psychology at all levels, an overview of historic and current theories of human behavior. Stanford University professor and author Philip Zimbardo narrates as leading researchers, practitioners, and theorists probe the mysteries of the mind and body. Based on extensive investigation and authoritative scholarship, this introductory course in psychology features demonstrations, classic experiments and simulations, current research, documentary footage, and computer animation. This series is also valuable for teachers seeking to review the subject matter.''

'''Episode 14. The Mind Hidden and Divided '''

''This program shows how experiences that take place below the level of consciousness alter our moods, bias our actions, and affect our health — as demonstrated in repression, discovered and false memory syndromes, hypnosis, and split-brain cases. With Dr. Jonathan Schooler of the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. Michael Gazzaniga of Dartmouth College. Updated. ''

DMahalko (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad Sounding...
"Alien hands can perform complex acts such as undoing buttons, removing clothing, and manipulating tools." Might want to change this - sounds a little suggestive, Don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.228.206 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I suggest moving "manipulating tools" so that it becomes the first example, to avoid the unintended perceived sequence. --Damiens .rf 17:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed vandalism; "dr balls syndrome," no doubt Johnfloyd6675 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Selected references from medical literature
I removed this section out of the article. It is not the least "selected" but way out of control. The entries here are not direct references to the content, so it is more like a "Further reading" section. Please see Further reading and put only entries that are topical, reliable and balanced, and please, keep the section limited in size. "Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works." If you want to put a an entry back into the article, please motivate why. Thank you! Lova Falk    talk   15:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

''''

Cultural references
Someone added that Common has this syndrome. Where are your sources for this? Can this be verified? I cannot find this mentioned in any other reports about Common, Glory, Diane Sawyer, etc. If its true, there should be some source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:691:2325:25F7:E318:BDF4:88BA (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't make any sense of this. What is "Common"? Looie496 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

"it might be useful to conceptualise it in this way"
The article has the following line:


 * [...] the occurrence of alien hand syndrome can be usefully conceptualized as a phenomenon reflecting a functional "disentanglement" between thought and action.

This does not assert any fact. It just says that it might be useful to conceptualise it in this way in order to better understand it. I can imagine that citation is needed for an objective statement, but this doesn't appear to be one. However, since this is an encyclopedia, does a subjective statement like this have any place in the article? If so, should it be replaced with something more clearly subjective? If not, should this statement be removed entirely, or should it be reworked into something more factual?

84.87.181.27 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Synonym "Dr. Strangelove syndrome"
The synonym "Dr. Strangelove syndrome" has been removed from the article. I'm adding it back because it's a fairly widely used term (though not formal medical terminology). If the NIH has no problem referring to it under that name, I don't see why we should... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, have it in the article, but IMO very unnecessary to put in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's where important and significant alternate names or synonyms are supposed to go, according to Manual of Style/Lead section -- bolded in the first section. See "Mumbai, also known as Bombay" etc. If there's any medical-specific policy which modifies this general policy, I'd be interested to know about it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And I say that the source you used indicate that this nickname exists and can be mentioned in the article (especially if you combine it with The Guardians "An early research paper had hoped to term it “Dr Strangelove’s syndrome” – after the film in which Peter Sellers has to repeatedly use his left hand to stop the right hand from making a Nazi salute – but the peer reviewers did not like this."), not that it is "important and significant". Note that your source use "alien hand syndrome" three times before mentioning the Dr., that doesn't support "important and significant". Interesting sidenote, more like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just do a general Google search on "Dr. Strangelove syndrome" and peruse the first few pages of results, and you'll see that it's quite widely used in the media, in general reference works, etc. It's almost certainly recognizable by a wider slice of the general English-speaking public than "Alien hand syndrome" is (though it's not quite so medically respectable/official, of course).  AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So, article-material, not lead-material. I think info-box is ok though. You only added it to the lead, also WP-error per WP:LEAD. I think "History" could be a good place to mention it per The Guardian Source. Or perhaps just expand pop-cult a little, that could work too. There's already a Dr Strangelove syndrome redirect, so that's done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If "Dr. Strangelove syndrome" is more widely known and recognizable to the general public, then it could be considered the "common name", and by WP:COMMONNAME would be a contender for the title of this article. For various reasons, I don't think it would be advisable to rename the article to "Dr. Strangelove syndrome", but if something is prominent enough to be be a viable alternate article title, then it would seem to be prominent enough to be bolded in the first paragraph of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a big if, and crappy google-hits comparisons hints it's really not, 83 900/10 700. Just because it's from a 1964 movie doesn't mean it's more recognizable to the general public. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To have something to compare with: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is way closer to it's "nickname" 3 340 000/1 120 000. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how useful Google stats are in this case (unless someone can come up with a clever search pattern), since newspaper articles and such would be likely to mention the popular term "Dr Strangelove syndrome" and also the official medical term "Alien hand syndrome", while medical articles would be less likely to mention "Dr Strangelove syndrome" (though a few in fact do so, as I've pointed out). Anyway, if Witzelsucht can mention 'The Joker Syndrome' in its lead section, this article should be able to mention "Dr Strangelove syndrome". AnonMoos (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll have to disagree to disagree. Witzelsucht mentions "Joker" only in the lead (crappy writing), less front and center than you put "Dr" here, and the two cites in the lead doesn't mention Joker or Batman (really crappy writing). We can do better. If you're going to compare with other articles, compare with good articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Parasyte on Netflix
The concept of Alien Hand Syndrome is used in the Netflix animation Parasyte. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasyte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinal17 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sabinal17 Do you have a decent source, independent of the manga, that noticed this and bothered to write something about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The concept seemed to mirror the concept Sabinal17 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)