Introducing Vibro-Acupuncture: A Psychophysical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: To potentially enhance the effects of conventional acupuncture, a novel acu-vibrator (prototype) has been developed to perform vibro-acupuncture (VA). The aim of this psychophysical study was to investigate the subjective sensations of VA compared with conventional manual acupuncture (MA) and non-penetrating sham acupuncture (SA). METHODS: 30 young healthy volunteers (21 men and 9 women) received VA, MA, and SA at LI4 and LI10 in a randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over manner. After 25 min of treatment, the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) acupuncture sensation scale (MASS), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), and numerical rating scale (NRS; 0-10) were employed followed by the acupuncture credibility and indication scale. Adverse events were investigated after treatment. Data were analysed using Friedman's test for repeated measures on ranks and post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: The MASS scores were significantly higher during MA and VA compared with SA at both LI4 and LI10 (p<0.017). Treatment with VA evoked significantly higher vibration sensations compared with MA and SA (p<0.005). Treatment with SA yielded significantly lower NRS and MPQ scores compared with MA and VA (p<0.001) with no difference between MA and VA (p>0.05). Blinding of participants was achieved for SA and MA; however, VA was correctly identified in 29 of 30 subjects due to the characteristic vibrational stimulation. No serious adverse events were recorded for any of the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective sensations were influenced by treatment mode, with MA and VA yielding higher stimulation responses compared with SA. VA evoked specific vibrational sensations beyond MA, which might have specific effects in various disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".