Literature DB >> 16140284

Human vibrotactile frequency discriminative capacity after adaptation to 25 Hz or 200 Hz stimulation.

M Tommerdahl1, K D Hester, E R Felix, M Hollins, O V Favorov, P M Quibrera, B L Whitsel.   

Abstract

A two-interval forced-choice (2-IFC) tracking procedure was used to evaluate the effects of a 15-s pre-exposure to either 25 Hz or 200 Hz stimulation ("25 Hz or 200 Hz adaptation") on human vibrotactile frequency discrimination threshold (frequency DL/Weber fraction). Three subjects were studied. All stimuli (standard and comparison) were delivered to a central location on the thenar eminence of the hand. The frequency DL/Weber fraction was determined for each subject under the following conditions: (1) no recent prior exposure to vibrotactile stimulation ("unadapted"); (2) after 15 s adaptation to 25 Hz stimulation; and (3) after 15 s adaptation to 200 Hz stimulation. The results demonstrate that the effects of frequency of adaptation on frequency discriminative capacity when the standard stimulus is 25 Hz are not the same as when the standard stimulus is 200 Hz. The differential changes in the capacity of subjects to discriminate frequency of cutaneous flutter (10-50 Hz) or vibratory (>200 Hz) stimulation that occur subsequent to a 15-s exposure of the thenar to 25 Hz or 200 Hz stimulation are proposed to reflect frequency-specific, adaptation-induced modification of the response of contralateral primary somatosensory cortex (SI and SII) to skin mechanoreceptor afferent drive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16140284     DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.04.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res        ISSN: 0006-8993            Impact factor:   3.252


  26 in total

1.  Neural timing signal for precise tactile timing judgments.

Authors:  Scinob Kuroki; Junji Watanabe; Shin'ya Nishida
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Human MST but not MT responds to tactile stimulation.

Authors:  Michael S Beauchamp; Nafi E Yasar; Neel Kishan; Tony Ro
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  A portable tactile sensory diagnostic device.

Authors:  V Tannan; R G Dennis; Z Zhang; M Tommerdahl
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2007-04-22       Impact factor: 2.390

4.  Noninformative vision causes adaptive changes in tactile sensitivity.

Authors:  Justin A Harris; Ehsan Arabzadeh; Clinton A Moore; Colin W G Clifford
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-07-04       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Effects of adaptation on the capacity to differentiate simultaneously delivered dual-site vibrotactile stimuli.

Authors:  V Tannan; S Simons; R G Dennis; M Tommerdahl
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Adaptation aftereffects reveal that tactile distance is a basic somatosensory feature.

Authors:  Elena Calzolari; Elena Azañón; Matthew Danvers; Giuseppe Vallar; Matthew R Longo
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Auditory adaptation improves tactile frequency perception.

Authors:  Lexi E Crommett; Alexis Pérez-Bellido; Jeffrey M Yau
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Auditory and tactile frequency representations are co-embedded in modality-defined cortical sensory systems.

Authors:  Md Shoaibur Rahman; Kelly Anne Barnes; Lexi E Crommett; Mark Tommerdahl; Jeffrey M Yau
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 9.  Chemobrain: a translational challenge for neurotoxicology.

Authors:  Bernard Weiss
Journal:  Neurotoxicology       Date:  2008-04-09       Impact factor: 4.294

10.  Temporal frequency channels are linked across audition and touch.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Yau; Jonathon B Olenczak; John F Dammann; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 10.834

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.