Not as “blurred” as expected? Acuity and spatial summation in the pain system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Spatial acuity measured by 2-point discrimination (2PD) threshold and spatial summation of pain (SSp) are useful paradigms to probe the pain system in humans. Whether the results of these paradigms are influenced by different stimulus modalities and intensities is unclear. The aim of this study was to test 2PD controlling the stimulus modality and the intensity and to investigate the effect of modality on SSp. Thirty-seven healthy volunteers were tested for 2PDs with 2 stimulus modalities (electrocutaneous and mechanical) and intensity (noxious and innocuous). For each condition, participants received stimuli to either 1 or 2 points on their lower back with different distances (2-14 cm, steps of 2 cm). It was found that 2PDs were significantly smaller for noxious stimuli for both modalities. By contrast, between-modality comparison reproduced previous reports of impaired acuity for noxious stimulation. Higher pain intensities were reported when a larger area was stimulated (SSp), independent of the modality. Furthermore, reported pain intensities were higher when the distance between 2 stimulated areas was increased from 2 to 6 cm (P < 0.001), 8 cm (P < 0.01), and 14 cm (P < 0.01). 2PDs determined by mechanical and electrocutaneous stimuli were significantly correlated within both stimulus intensities, ie, innocuous (r = 0.34, P < 0.05) and noxious (r = 0.35, P < 0.05). The current results show 3 novel findings: (1) the precision of the pain system might be higher than in the innocuous (tactile) system when mechanical and electrocutaneous modalities are used, (2) the pattern of distance-based and area-based SSp seems to be comparable irrespective of the modality applied (mechanical and electrocutaneous), and (3) both modalities are moderately correlated.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".