Down The Rabbit Hole

Alice in Wonderland Syndrome and the Brain’s Construction of Reality 

Written By Harshitaa Sendhilkumar

When Alice falls down the rabbit hole, she finds herself in a strange low hall, lined with doors she cannot open. On a glass table, she sees a small bottle labelled “drink me” and so follows the instructions. After drinking the potion she begins to shrink, but she doesn’t simply change size – she enters a world, a wonderland, where perception has become unreliable. The room stretches away from her, her body no longer obeys familiar proportions, and the more she tries to reason through what is happening, the less coherent it becomes; what she sees and what she understands no longer align. 

Lewis Carroll was writing a dream in his novel, not a case history. But the parallels between Alice’s experience and a real neurological condition were striking enough that when British psychiatrist John Todd named Alice in Wonderland Syndrome in 1955, the choice of heroine was natural.⁽¹⁾ Clinicians had been drawing comparisons to Carroll's work as early as 1933, when neurologist Stanley Coleman first noted the resemblance, followed by his colleague Caro Lippman in 1952.⁽¹⁾ Both the novel and the clinical accounts of the syndrome describe not a change in external reality itself, but a disruption in how the brain constructs it. 

Alice in Wonderland syndrome (AIWS) is a neurological condition characterised by episodic distortions of size, distance, body image, and time. Its symptoms fall broadly into two categories: disturbances of visual perception and disturbances of self-perception. Visual perception disturbances involve environments appearing displaced or misshaped, with objects seeming to shrink or enlarge and rooms expanding or contracting. This can extend to derealisation – a sense that the external world is unreal. Self-perceptual disturbances involve the patient’s own body feeling altered or disproportionate, such as limbs appearing elongated or compressed, and can lead to depersonalisation – a sense of detachment from the self. Time perception can also accelerate or slow down, and in some cases auditory perception is disturbed, with voices and ambient sounds experienced as unnaturally fast or slow.⁽²⁾

A defining feature of the condition is the preservation of insight. Patients typically remain aware throughout an episode that their perceptions do not reflect reality.⁽³⁾ This distinguishes AIWS from hallucination (a perception occurring without an external stimulus and experienced as real) and from illusion (the misidentification of a real stimulus).⁽⁴⁾ Instead, AIWS describes a perceptual distortion where the stimulus is real, but there is a degradation in the accuracy of its sensory representation. 

Episodes are usually brief, lasting minutes and only rarely exceeding half an hour. While they can be distressing, the prognosis in most cases is reassuring. The condition is often described as rare, with fewer than 200 cases reported in the literature,⁽⁵⁾ but this likely underestimates its true prevalence. Transient symptoms consistent with AIWS have been reported in up to 30% of adolescents, and similar phenomena occur in those with migraine aura.⁽¹⁾ As a result, the syndrome remains inconsistently recognised, resulting in frequent diagnostic delay. 

The causes of AIWS are heterogeneous and often incompletely understood. In adults, migraine is the most common association, particularly migraine with aura, with perceptual disturbances thought to arise from the cortical changes that precede headache. In children, viral infections, particularly Epstein-Barr virus, are the most frequently identified trigger. Epilepsy involving the occipital or temporal lobes of the brain accounts for a further subset, and a proportion of cases remain idiopathic. The condition is more commonly reported in children than in adults, and in many paediatric cases, symptoms resolve over time, with patients appearing to grow out of episodes as they mature. Where an underlying cause persists, however, symptoms may recur.⁽³⁾

Recent neuroimaging studies have begun to clarify the underlying neuroanatomy. A lesion-mapping study published in the Annals of Neurology examined 37 patients with AIWS and found that more than 85% of lesions shared functional connectivity with two brain regions: the right extrastriate body area, involved in body part perception, and the inferior parietal cortex, implicated in judgements of size and scale.⁽⁶⁾ This pattern is considered characteristic of AIWS when compared to other neuropsychiatric conditions. Both regions connect to the temporo-parietal-occipital junction, a key integration site where visual, spatial and somatosensory information is combined into a coherent representation of the body and its environment. One leading hypothesis is that cortical spreading depression, a wave of transient neuronal depolarisation well established in migraine aura, temporarily disrupts these networks.^(3,7) The precise mechanism remains uncertain, and the transient, unpredictable nature of episodes presents a significant methodological challenge for real-time investigation.

As there is no treatment specific to AIWS, management is directed at the underlying cause, whether migraine prophylaxis, antiepileptic therapy, or treatment of infection where appropriate.⁽⁸⁾ Antipsychotic medications are not effective, an important distinction given how readily the presentation may be mistaken for a psychotic disorder.⁽¹⁾ In most cases, episodes are brief and self-limiting, with a favourable prognosis, and the most significant intervention for many patients is diagnostic. The identification of a recognised neurological syndrome can transform an otherwise isolating experience into one that is named, understood and contextualised within a medical framework. 

Beyond its clinical particulars, AIWS opens onto a broader question about how the brain constructs our reality. The regions identified in the lesion-mapping study are not specialised structures recruited only in disease – they are the regions responsible, in every healthy brain, for constructing our sense of body size, spatial scale and physical self. The networks observed to misfire transiently in AIWS are constantly performing this integrative work below the threshold of conscious awareness in all of us. Their temporary failure in AIWS is consistent with a growing body of evidence in cognitive and computational neuroscience suggesting that perception is not a passive registration of external reality, but an active, generative process. 

The idea that perception is constructed rather than passively received has a long history in sensory neuroscience, though it has gained considerable empirical traction in recent decades. In the nineteenth century, Hermann von Helmholtz, a German physician and physicist, proposed that the brain performs a process he termed ‘unconscious inference’, generating its best estimate of the external world from incomplete and ambiguous sensory data rather than simply registering it directly.⁽⁹⁾ Contemporary neuroscience has returned to and formalised this view through the framework of predictive coding, developed most influentially by Karl Friston,⁽¹⁰⁾ a neuroscientist at UCL, who built on the seminal work by computational neuroscientists Rao and Ballard.⁽¹¹⁾ On this account, the brain operates as a generative model, continuously producing predictions about expected sensory input and computing prediction errors when incoming data deviate from those expectations. 

What we consciously experience is, therefore, not raw sensory input, but the brain’s continuously updated probabilistic model of reality that is so stable and internally consistent that, under normal conditions, there is no reason to question it. But in AIWS, the calibration of this generative process is transiently disrupted. The distortions described by patients reflect a temporary failure in the brain’s capacity to maintain a coherent and scaled model of the body and its spatial environment, and because patients retain insight throughout the episode, this breakdown becomes legible: they experience the model misfiring while remaining aware that it has done so. 

The phenomenon of phantom limb sensation illustrates the same principle. Amputees frequently report vivid sensations of movement, pressure and pain in limbs that no longer exist, demonstrating how the brain’s internal model of the body can persist and function independently of the physical structure that it represents.⁽¹²⁾ Oliver Sacks, the neurologist and writer who brought clinical case studies to a wide readership, viewed such phenomena not as anomalies to be catalogued, but as insights into the functional organisation of normal experience.⁽¹³⁾ From this perspective, AIWS does not introduce an unfamiliar kind of experience, but reveals, through transient disruption, the mechanisms that ordinarily maintain a stable construction of reality. 

Anil Seth, a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience and a leading researcher in the neuroscience of consciousness, has developed this line of thinking into what he terms the ‘controlled hallucination’ framework.⁽¹⁴⁾ Drawing on Friston’s predictive coding model, Seth argues that conscious perception is best understood as a generative process in which the brain actively constructs its representation of the world from internal predictions (top-down signals), with incoming sensory data (bottom-up signals) serving to correct the model rather than generate experience directly. 

Taken together, these frameworks – Helmholtz’s unconscious inference, Friston’s predictive coding and Seth’s controlled hallucination – converge on a shared and increasingly well-supported claim: that the apparent immediacy of perception is not evidence of direct contact with external reality, but evidence that the brain’s generative model of the world is, under normal conditions, accurate enough to pass entirely unnoticed. AIWS offers a clinically grounded instance of what becomes observable when that model temporarily breaks down. Further research into the syndrome therefore holds promise not only for improving clinical understanding of an underrecognised condition, but for advancing a more fundamental account of how the brain constructs its representation of the body and the environment.  

The deeper we look into how the brain constructs reality, the less fantastical Alice’s experiences begin to seem. Curiouser and curiouser! 

Read the rest of the edition here.

References

1. Blom JD. Alice in Wonderland syndrome: a systematic review. Neurology: Clinical Practice [Internet]. 2016 Apr 8;6(3):259–70. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4909520/
2. Beh SC, Masrour S, Smith SV, Friedman DI. Clinical characteristics of Alice in Wonderland syndrome in a cohort with vestibular migraine. Neurology: Clinical Practice [Internet]. 2018 Oct 1;8(5):389–96. Available from: https://cp.neurology.org/content/8/5/389
3. Fitzek MP, Mecklenburg J, Overeem LH, Lange KS, Siebert A, Triller P, et al. Alice in Wonderland Syndrome (AIWS): prevalence and characteristics in adults with migraine. Journal of Neurology. 2024 May 31;271(8):5146–55.
4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
5. Brooks JBB, Prosdocimi FC, Rosa PB da, Fragoso YD. Alice in Wonderland syndrome: “Who in the world am I?” Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria. 2019 Sep;77(9):672–4.
6. Friedrich MU, Baughan EC, Kletenik I, Younger E, Zhao CW, Howard C, et al. Lesions Causing Alice in Wonderland Syndrome Map to a Common Brain Network Linking Body and Size Perception. Annals of Neurology. 2024 Jul 1;96(4):662–672
7. Domenico C, Lavano S, Chirchiglia P. Neurophysiology of a double aura in migraine and Alice in wonderland syndrome: Is there a link? Neurology, Psychiatry and Brain Research. 2019 Jun;32:1–3.
8. Bittmann S, Weissenstein A, Luchter E. Alice in Wonderland syndrome: A rare neurological manifestation with microscopy in a 6-year-old child. Journal of Pediatric Neurosciences [Internet]. 2014;9(3):303. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4302569/
9. Hatfield G. Perception as Unconscious Interference [Internet]. 2002. p. 115–43. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228481583_Perception_as_Unconscious_Interference
10. Friston K, Kiebel S. Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009 May 12;364(1521):1211–21.
11. Rao RPN, Ballard DH. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience. 1999 Jan;2(1):79–87.
12. UCL. The brain’s map of the body remains unchanged after amputation [Internet]. UCL News. 2025. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/aug/brains-map-body-remains-unchanged-after-amputation
13. Sacks OW. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. London: Picador; 1985.
14. Seth A. Being You: A New Science of Consciousness. Faber & Faber; 2021.