Selective skin sensitivity changes and sensory reweighting following short-duration space flight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin sensory input from the foot soles is coupled with vestibular input to facilitate body orientation in a gravitational environment. Anecdotal observations suggest that foot sole skin becomes hypersensitive following space flight. The veritable level of skin sensitivity and its impact on postural disequilibrium observed post space flight have not been documented. Skin sensitivity of astronauts (n = 11) was measured as vibration perception at the great toe, fifth metatarsal and heel. Frequencies targeted four classes of receptors: 3 and 25 Hz for slow-adapting (SA) receptors and 60 and 250 Hz for fast-adapting (FA) receptors. Data were collected pre- and post-space flight. We hypothesized that skin sensitivity would increase post-space flight and correlate to balance measures. Decreased skin sensitivity was found on landing day at 3 and 25 Hz on the great toe. Hypersensitivity was found for a subset of astronauts (n = 6) with significantly increased sensitivity to 250 Hz at the heel. This subset displayed a greater reduction in computerized dynamic posturography (CDP) equilibrium (EQ) scores (-54%) on landing vs. non-hypersensitive participants (-11%). Observed hyposensitivity of SA (pressure) receptors may indicate a strategy to reduce pressure input during periods of unloading. Hypersensitivity of FAs coupled with reduced EQ scores may reflect targeted sensory reweighting. Altered gravito-inertial environments reduce vestibular function in balance control which may trigger increased weighting of FAs (that signal foot contact, slips). Understanding modulations to skin sensitivity has translational implications for mitigating postural disequilibrium following space flight and for on-Earth preventative strategies for imbalance in older adults.
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".