Literature DB >> 29981764

Comparative tactile sensitivity of the fingertip and apical tongue using complex and pure tactile tasks.

Brittany L Miles1, Karli Van Simaeys1, Morgan Whitecotton1, Christopher T Simons2.   

Abstract

Both the tongue and fingertip are highly tactile tissues relevant in texture perception, but work comparing relative sensitivity to elucidate potential differences in stimulus processing is limited. Presently, the acuity of the tongue and fingertip were compared using a series of tactile acuity tasks. We hypothesized the tongue would show superior acuity regardless of stimuli due to an absent epidermal barrier and its involvement in many high-sensitivity behaviors (e.g. eating, speaking). Acuity was determined using three different tests, two "purely-tactile" just noticeable difference (JND) tasks (punctate pressure and roughness sensitivity) and a more-complex, stereognostic letter-recognition task to evaluate point-and-edge sensitivity. JNDs were determined using the forced-choice staircase method for the punctate deformation force of a monofilament (F;0.0044-0.010 g) and the surface roughness of stainless steel coupons (Ra; 0.177-0.465 μm) in populations of 30 and 31 individuals, respectively. Point-and-edge sensitivity was assessed by determining the letter recognition threshold (RT) based on height (h;1.5-8.0 mm) in an additional 28 individuals using a modified staircase method. While subjects had significantly lower JNDs with their tongues for both "purely-tactile" tasks (punctate: 0.0017 ± 0.0001 g vs. 0.0023 ± 0.0002 g (fingertip), p = .018; roughness: 0.039 ± 0.004 μm vs. 0.112 ± 0.020 μm (fingertip), p < .001), subjects had significantly higher RTs with their tongues for the letter identification task (3.98 ± 0.84 mm vs. 4.54 ± 1.41 mm (fingertip), p = .0417). The latter difference is likely attributable to the more complex nature of the RT task and the finger's frequent involvement in object recognition. Binomial statistics (p = 1/2, α = 0.05) showed a significant number of subjects were better at the roughness task with their tongues (p = .021); however, a significant majority were better at the letter identification task with their fingers (p = .049); no significant difference was found for the punctate pressure task. While data appear to suggest the tongue is more sensitive to exclusively tactile stimuli, further study of other "pure-tactile" sensations should help clarify the contradictory results of the RT task.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fingertip; Punctate pressure; Roughness; Stereognosis; Tactile sensitivity; Tongue

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29981764     DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.07.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Behav        ISSN: 0031-9384


  6 in total

1.  Elucidation of a lingual detection mechanism for high-viscosity solutions in humans.

Authors:  Brittany L Miles; Zhenxing Wu; Kelly S Kennedy; Kai Zhao; Christopher T Simons
Journal:  Food Funct       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 5.396

2.  Assessment of Taste Function.

Authors:  Y Zhu; T Hummel
Journal:  Handb Exp Pharmacol       Date:  2022

3.  Poor resolution at the back of the tongue is the bottleneck for spatial pattern recognition.

Authors:  Zahide Pamir; M Umut Canoluk; Jae-Hyun Jung; Eli Peli
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Subjective touch sensitivity leads to behavioral shifts in oral food texture sensitivity and awareness.

Authors:  R Pellegrino; C McNelly; C R Luckett
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Data for all: Tactile graphics that light up with picture-perfect resolution.

Authors:  Jordan C Koone; Chad M Dashnaw; Emily A Alonzo; Miguel A Iglesias; Kelly-Shaye Patero; Juan J Lopez; Ao Yun Zhang; Bernd Zechmann; Noah E Cook; Mona S Minkara; Cary A Supalo; Hoby B Wedler; Matthew J Guberman-Pfeffer; Bryan F Shaw
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 14.957

6.  Visualizing 3D imagery by mouth using candy-like models.

Authors:  Katelyn M Baumer; Juan J Lopez; Surabi V Naidu; Sanjana Rajendran; Miguel A Iglesias; Kathleen M Carleton; Cheyanne J Eisenmann; Lillian R Carter; Bryan F Shaw
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 14.136

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.