Posture Dependent Changes in Perceptual Threshold During Light Touch Foot Sole Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Light touch sensitivity of the foot sole is typically measured when individuals are seated or lying down; yet, a critical function of the foot sole is to support cutaneous feedback during standing and walking activities. The objective of this study was to evaluate how individuals perceive light touch stimulation across the foot sole while in different postures including standing. METHODS: We measured light touch perceptual threshold (LTPT) in standing, seated, and supine postures in 19 volunteers (10 females, 9 males), using Semmes-Weinstein Monofilaments. Perceptual thresholds were calculated at three foot sole locations (1st metatarsal, lateral arch, and heel) in each posture. RESULTS: Perceptual thresholds were significantly higher in the standing condition compared to the seated and supine conditions across all foot locations; perceptual thresholds were significantly higher while seated compared to supine only at the heel and not at the lateral arch or 1st metatarsal. Our results demonstrate that postural changes significantly influence sensitivity across the foot sole. CONCLUSION: Performing perceptual threshold assessments of the foot sole while standing may offer more relevant insights into the capacity of foot sole cutaneous afferents to convey light touch information in conditions where such feedback plays a vital role in maintaining balance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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".