Mirror Neurons and Pain: A Scoping Review of Experimental, Social, and Clinical Evidence

Abstract

Background: The mirror neuron system (MNS) has been proposed as a key neural mechanism linking action perception, motor representation, and social cognition. This framework has increasingly been applied to pain research, encompassing pain empathy, observational learning of pain, and rehabilitative interventions such as mirror therapy. However, the literature is conceptually heterogeneous, methodologically diverse, and spans experimental, social, and clinical domains. Objective: This scoping review aims to map the extent, nature, and characteristics of the available evidence on the relationship between the MNS and pain, clarifying how MNS-related mechanisms are defined, investigated, and applied across different contexts. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the methodological framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO. Studies were included if they addressed MNS-related mechanisms in pain processing, pain empathy, pain modulation, or pain rehabilitation. Eligible studies were charted and synthesized descriptively and thematically. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence was predominantly derived from clinical and rehabilitative settings, with most studies focusing on mirror therapy or mirror visual feedback interventions. The majority of included populations consisting of adults with chronic pain conditions, particularly phantom limb pain and complex regional pain syndrome. Pain intensity, assessed mainly through self-reported clinical scales, was the most frequently reported outcome. A smaller number of studies investigated action observation or motor imagery paradigms, primarily in chronic musculoskeletal pain, showing short-term hypoalgesic effects. Across studies, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the conceptualization of MNS-related constructs, intervention protocols, outcome measures, and follow-up duration. Conclusions: Despite extensive theoretical discussion of the MNS, empirical applications are largely confined to clinical mirror-based interventions, with limited use of direct neurophysiological or neuroimaging markers. Since crucial conceptual and methodological gaps constrain comparability and translation into clinical practice, there is a need for clearer operational definitions and more integrated experimental and clinical research approaches.