Vibrotactile stimulation of fast-adapting cutaneous afferents from the foot modulates proprioception at the ankle joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has previously been shown that cutaneous sensory input from across a broad region of skin can influence proprioception at joints of the hand. The present experiment tested whether cutaneous input from different skin regions across the foot can influence proprioception at the ankle joint. The ability to passively match ankle joint position (17° and 7° plantar flexion and 7° dorsiflexion) was measured while cutaneous vibration was applied to the sole (heel, distal metatarsals) or dorsum of the target foot. Vibration was applied at two different frequencies to preferentially activate Meissner's corpuscles (45 Hz, 80 μm) or Pacinian corpuscles (255 Hz, 10 μm) at amplitudes ∼3 dB above mean perceptual thresholds. Results indicated that cutaneous input from all skin regions across the foot could influence joint-matching error and variability, although the strongest effects were observed with heel vibration. Furthermore, the influence of cutaneous input from each region was modulated by joint angle; in general, vibration had a limited effect on matching in dorsiflexion compared with matching in plantar flexion. Unlike previous results in the upper limb, we found no evidence that Pacinian input exerted a stronger influence on proprioception compared with Meissner input. Findings from this study suggest that fast-adapting cutaneous input from the foot modulates proprioception at the ankle joint in a passive joint-matching task. These results indicate that there is interplay between tactile and proprioceptive signals originating from the foot and ankle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".