Electrotactile stimulation on the tongue: Intensity perception, discrimination, and cross-modality estimation.
Due to its high sensitivity and conductivity, electrotactile stimulation (ETS) on the tongue has proven to be a useful and technically convenient tool to substitute and/or augment sensory capabilities. However, most of its applications have only provided spatial attributes and little is known about (a) the ability of the tongue's sensory system to process electrical stimuli of varying magnitudes and (b) how modulation of ETS intensity affects subjects' ability to decode stimulus intensity. We addressed these questions by quantifying: (1) the magnitude of the dynamic range (DR; maximal comfortable intensity/perception threshold) and its sensitivity to prolonged exposure; (2) subjects' ability to perceive intensity changes; and (3) subjects' ability to associate intensity with angular excursions of a protractor's handle. We found that the average DR (17 dB) was generally large in comparison with other tactile loci and of a relatively constant magnitude among subjects, even after prolonged exposure, despite a slight but significant upward drift (p < 0.001). Additionally, our results showed that as stimulus intensity increased, subjects' ability to discriminate ETS stimuli of different intensities improved (p < 0.05) while estimation accuracy, in general, slightly decreased (increasing underestimation). These results suggest that higher ETS intensity may increase recruitment of rapidly adapting mechanoreceptor fibers, as these are specialized for coding stimulus differences rather than absolute intensities. Furthermore, our study revealed that the tongue's sensory system can effectively convey electrical stimuli despite minimal practice and when information transfer is limited by memory and DR drift.
Lozano
Cecil A
CA
Department of Kinesiology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.
Kaczmarek
Kurt A
KA
Santello
Marco
M
D000328:Adult; D004558:Electric Stimulation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012684:Sensory Thresholds / Q000502:physiology*; D014059:Tongue / Q000294:innervation* / Q000502:physiology*; D014110:Touch
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2008 Aug;16(4):410-5
18713678
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1977 Jul;15(4):363-73
197328
Somatosens Mot Res. 2007 Dec;24(4):179-88
18097991
Am J Otolaryngol. 1989 Sep-Oct;10(5):342-4
2817250
IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000 Dec;8(4):499-505
11204041
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Oct;116(4 Pt 1):2258-68
15532657
Am J Psychol. 1971 Dec;84(4):487-99
5142061
J Acoust Soc Am. 1969 Aug;46(2):372-83
5804107
Am J Psychol. 2004 Winter;117(4):543-64
15605958
J Vestib Res. 2007;17(2-3):119-30
18413905
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Dec;7(12):541-6
14643370
Percept Psychophys. 1981 Dec;30(6):579-86
7335455
Neurosci Lett. 2008 Feb 6;431(3):206-10
18166270
J Speech Hear Res. 1970 Sep;13(3):635-44
5507119
IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 2000 Jun;8(2):268-70
10896199
J Acoust Soc Am. 1983 Apr;73(4):1283-92
6687893
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2006 Mar;14(1):116-23
16562639
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991 Jul;38(7):679-86
1879861
J Neurosurg. 1983 Nov;59(5):781-9
6604794
Ann Biomed Eng. 1986;14(4):369-81
3752640
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991 Jan;38(1):1-16
2026426
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2000 Nov;17(6):539-58
11151974
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2003 Mar;11(1):9-16
12797720
J Neurophysiol. 1997 Feb;77(2):737-48
9065846
J Physiol. 1979 Jan;286:283-300
439026
Physiol Behav. 2003 Nov;80(2-3):289-302
14637228
Brain. 2005 Mar;128(Pt 3):606-14
15634727
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1984 Aug;31(8):558-60
6490033
Science. 1978 Apr 21;200(4339):330-2
635592
J Integr Neurosci. 2003 Dec;2(2):159-64
15011268
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 Sep-Oct;42(5):705-14
16586196
Scand J Psychol. 1967;8(2):65-76
6043518
Optom Vis Sci. 2001 Jan;78(1):56-64
11233336
Neurology. 1994 Dec;44(12):2361-6
7991127
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998 Oct;35(4):427-30
10220221
J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Oct;100(4 Pt 1):2393-414
8865646
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1992 Jul;39(7):701-15
1516937