Literature DB >> 18443774

Discriminating smooth from grooved surfaces: effects of random variations in skin penetration.

James C Craig1, Roger P Rhodes, Gregory O Gibson, Sliman J Bensmaia.   

Abstract

The ability to discriminate a smooth surface from a grooved one depends on several variables, including the width of the grooves and the force with which the skin is contacted. It has been hypothesized that this smooth-grooved discrimination with statically presented stimuli is based on intensity cues, namely, the overall difference in perceived intensity between the smooth and grooved surfaces. To test this hypothesis, the perceived intensities of test stimuli were varied on a trial-by-trial basis by varying the depth of penetration the contactor was allowed to travel into the skin. As compared to a control condition in which stimuli were presented with the same average penetration and contrary to the hypothesis, random variations in penetration produced no decline in smooth-grooved performance. The total amount of conformance was an accurate predictor of sensitivity across various penetrations and across two test sites (distal finger pad and finger base). It appears that subjects are making absolute rather than comparative judgments in the smooth-grooved task. A recently developed continuum mechanical model of the responses of first-order mechanoreceptive afferents to static stimuli provided both a good fit to the data and indicated what aspect of the peripheral neural image was relevant for discriminating smooth surfaces from grooved surfaces.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18443774     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-008-1363-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  26 in total

1.  A comparison of tactile spatial sensitivity on the palm and fingerpad.

Authors:  J C Craig; K B Lyle
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-02

2.  Relative roles of spatial and intensive cues in the discrimination of spatial tactile stimuli.

Authors:  Gregory O Gibson; James C Craig
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-10

3.  Responses of human mechanoreceptive afferents to embossed dot arrays scanned across fingerpad skin.

Authors:  J R Phillips; R S Johansson; K O Johnson
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Representation of braille characters in human nerve fibres.

Authors:  J R Phillips; R S Johansson; K O Johnson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Relative availability of surface and object properties during early haptic processing.

Authors:  S J Lederman; R L Klatzky
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Factors affecting tactile spatial acuity.

Authors:  J C Craig; J M Kisner
Journal:  Somatosens Mot Res       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.111

7.  Tactile spatial resolution. I. Two-point discrimination, gap detection, grating resolution, and letter recognition.

Authors:  K O Johnson; J R Phillips
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1981-12       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Tactile discrimination of shape: responses of slowly adapting mechanoreceptor afferents to a step stroked across the monkey fingerpad.

Authors:  R H LaMotte; M A Srinivasan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  A continuum mechanical model of mechanoreceptive afferent responses to indented spatial patterns.

Authors:  Arun P Sripati; Sliman J Bensmaia; Kenneth O Johnson
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  A psychophysical study of the mechanisms of sensory recovery following nerve injury in humans.

Authors:  R W Van Boven; K O Johnson
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 13.501

View more
  3 in total

1.  Tactile co-activation improves detection of afferent spatial modulation.

Authors:  Gregory O Gibson; Christopher D Makinson; Krish Sathian
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-02-06       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Vision is superior to touch in shape perception even with equivalent peripheral input.

Authors:  Yoonju Cho; J C Craig; S S Hsiao; S J Bensmaia
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Detection of Simulated Tactile Gratings by Electro-Static Friction Show a Dependency on Bar Width for Blind and Sighted Observers, and Preliminary Neural Correlates in Sighted Observers.

Authors:  Quoc C Vuong; Aya M Shaaban; Carla Black; Jess Smith; Mahmoud Nassar; Ahmed Abozied; Patrick Degenaar; Walid Al-Atabany
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 4.677

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.