Distribution and behaviour of glabrous cutaneous receptors in the human foot sole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To document the activity of cutaneous mechanoreceptors in the glabrous skin of the foot sole, tungsten microelectrodes were inserted through the popliteal fossa and into the tibial nerve of thirteen healthy human subjects. A total of 104 cutaneous mechanoreceptors were identified in the glabrous skin of the foot. This sample consisted of 15 slow adapting type I (14 %), 16 slow adapting type II (15 %), 59 fast adapting type I (57 %), and 14 fast adapting type II units (14 %). The location of the receptors and the outline of the receptive fields were determined by using nylon monofilaments perpendicularly applied against the surface of the skin. This revealed that the receptors were widely distributed without an accumulation of receptors in the toes. There were also larger receptive fields predominantly isolated on the plantar surface of the metatarsal-tarsal region of the foot sole. Furthermore, with the foot in an unloaded position, there was no background discharge activity in any of the cutaneous receptors in the absence of intentionally applied stimulation. These findings suggest that skin receptors in the foot sole behave differently from those receptors found on the glabrous skin of the hand. This may reflect the role of foot sole skin receptors in standing balance and movement control.
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) | 0.002 | 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".