Unique influence of stimulus duration and stimulation site (glabrous vs. hairy skin) on the thermal grill‐induced percept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application to the skin of spatially interlaced innocuous warm (40 °C) and cool (20 °C) thermodes (termed a thermal grill--TG) can produce an unusual thermal percept, but the mechanisms remain unclear. METHODS: We compared the percept quality and intensity over a 120-s period evoked by each of three configurations of a 6-bar thermal stimulator (6 TS): all 40 °C(WARM); all 20 °C(COOL); alternating bars 40/20 °C (TG) at two body sites (forearm and palm). RESULTS: Both unpleasantness and pain were significantly greater for the TG-induced (vs. either COOL- or WARM-induced) percept. Unpleasantness ratings were significantly higher than pain intensity ratings. Several emotional qualitative descriptors were unique to the TG-induced percept. TG palmar (vs. forearm) stimulation produced a more intense percept and was perceived as painful in more subjects. Temporal profiles of intensities of TG-induced percepts differed from those induced by the COOL or WARM thermodes alone. For both unpleasantness and pain, the site differences in the temporal profile were also unique for TG versus the COOL- or WARM-evoked percepts. Qualitative characteristics of the TG-induced percept varied over time and between subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The TG percept intensity and temporal profile were different from those evoked by either of its component parts. The perceived quality is person-specific. These differences suggest that the classic 'TG illusion' results from complex central integration of several types of peripheral afferent inputs activated by the TG. Differing body site-related roles of thermosensory afferents in discrimination versus temperature homeostasis may explain site-related variations in the percept.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".