Comparison of Visual and Somatosensory Thresholds in Human Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Although humans engage the environment constantly with all five senses, we still know relatively little about some aspects of sensory interaction, particularly the relationships between the primary senses (vision and hearing) and the secondary senses (taste, touch/pain, and smell). This is of interest both for our understanding of the links between the neural mechanisms which underlie the different senses, as well as for the diagnosis and treatment of sensory related disorders. The present study reports on the first study designed to explore the basic question of whether fundamental aspects of human vision are related to the somatosensory systems of touch and pain. Methods: Two essential measures of spatial vision (visual acuity, contrast sensitivity) and a measure of temporal vision (flicker fusion threshold) were assessed in 45 healthy young adults (M = 23 y). Within the same session, contact heat and pressure algometer pain threshold/tolerance, as well as touch thresholds (von Frey fibres) were obtained from several locations on each subject’s left hand and arm. Individual subject data was also collected from 12 adults who were evaluated repeatedly over 10 additional sessions. Results: Correlational analyses within the group data revealed very little relationship between any aspects of vision (spatial or temporal) and any of the touch or pain measures. However, data from individuals tested repeatedly revealed that contrast sensitivity was related to pain tolerance obtained with both contact heat and with pressure algometry (both p <0.05). Conclusions: The present results provide evidence that human adults may show a relationship between pain sensitivity and some aspects of spatial vision. Given that dopamine is heavily involved in both the processing of pain as well as spatial information in the cortex, this raises the interesting possibility that the observed co-variation in sensitivity may be explained by dopaminergic involvement. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".