Preserved tactile distance estimation despite body representation distortions in individuals with fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our mental representation of our body depends on integrating various sensory modalities, such as tactile information. In tactile distance estimation (TDE) tasks, participants must estimate the distance between two tactile tips applied to their skin. This measure of tactile perception has been linked to body representation assessments. Studies in individuals with fibromyalgia (FM), a chronic widespread pain syndrome, suggest the presence of body representation distortions and tactile alterations, but TDE has never been examined in this population. Twenty participants with FM and 24 pain-free controls performed a TDE task on three Body regions (upper limb, trunk, lower limb), in which they manually estimated the interstimuli distance on a tablet. TDE error, the absolute difference between the estimation and the interstimuli distance, was not different between the Groups, on any Body region. Drawings of their body as they felt it revealed clear and frequent distortions of body representation in the group with FM, compared to negligible perturbations in controls. This contrast between distorted body drawings and unaltered TDE suggests a preserved integration of tactile information but an altered integration of this information with other sensory modalities to generate a precise and accurate body representation. Future research should investigate the relative contribution of each sensory information and prior knowledge about the body in body representation in individuals with FM to shed light on the observed distortions.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".