Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1979 Dec;297:405–422. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1979.sp013048

Detection of tactile stimuli. Thresholds of afferent units related to psychophysical thresholds in the human hand.

R S Johansson, A B Vallbo
PMCID: PMC1458728  PMID: 536918

Abstract

1. Psychophysical thresholds were determined at 162 points in the glabrous skin area of the human hand when slowly rising, triangular indentations of controlled amplitudes were delivered with a small probe. The method of constant stimuli was used with either the two alternative forced choice or the yes-no procedure. It was found that the distribution of the psychophysical thresholds varied with the skin region. Thresholds from the volar aspect of the fingers and the peripheral parts of the palm were low and their distribution was unimodal with a median of 11.2 micrometers. In contrast, there was an over-representation of high thresholds when observations from the centre of the palm, the lateral aspects of the fingers and the regions of the creases were pooled, and the distribution was slightly bimodal with a median of 36.0 micrometers. 2. Nerve impulses were recorded from single fibres in the median nerve of human subjects with percutaneously inserted tungsten needle electrodes. The thresholds of 128 mechanosensitive afferent units in the glabrous skin area of the hand were determined when stimuli were delivered to partly the same points as stimulated for the assessment of the psychophysical thresholds. Of the four types of units present in this area the Pacinian corpuscle (PC) and rapidly adapting (RA) units had the lowest thresholds with medians of 9.2 and 13.8 micrometers, followed by the slowly adapting type I and slowly adapting type II units with medians of 56.5 and 33.1 micrometers. There was no indication of a difference between thresholds of units located in different skin areas. 3. In the region of low psychophysical thresholds there was good agreement between the thresholds of the rapidly adapting and Pacinian corpuscle units and the psychophysical thresholds, particularly at the lower ends of the samples. In the skin regions of high thresholds, on the other hand, practically all psychophysical thresholds were higher than the thresholds of the most sensitive afferent units. Moreover, simultaneous recording of nerve impulses during a detection task indicated that subjects did not detect stimuli strong enough to elicit several impulses in afferent units in this region. 4. Circumstantial evidence led to the conclusion that detection was dependent on one impulse in one or a few rapidly adapting units under optimal conditons in the region of low psychophysical thresholds, whereas it seemed unlikely that activity in Pacinian corpuscle units was crucial. 5. The findings are consistent with the interpretation that human subjects are able to detect an input consisting of a single impulse in a single rapidly adapting unit.

Full text

PDF
405

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Corso J. F. Neural quantum controversy in sensory psychology. Science. 1973 Aug 3;181(4098):467–469. doi: 10.1126/science.181.4098.467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Darlington C., Donaldson I. M. Does the threshold for small displacements of the finger pad depend on velocity? J Physiol. 1973 Feb;229(1):21P–22P. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Eijkman E., Vendrik A. J. Detection Theory Applied to the Absolute Sensitivity of Sensory Systems. Biophys J. 1963 Jan;3(1):65–78. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3495(63)86804-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Franzén O., Offenloch K. Evoked response correlates of psychophysical magnitude estimates for tactile stimulation in man. Exp Brain Res. 1969;8(1):1–18. doi: 10.1007/BF00234922. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. HENSEL H., BOMAN K. K. Afferent impulses in cutaneous sensory nerves in human subjects. J Neurophysiol. 1960 Sep;23:564–578. doi: 10.1152/jn.1960.23.5.564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Harrington T., Merzenich M. M. Neural coding in the sense of touch: human sensations of skin indentation compared with the responses of slowly adapting mechanoreceptive afferents innvervating the hairy skin of monkeys. Exp Brain Res. 1970;10(3):251–264. doi: 10.1007/BF00235049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Johansson R. S. Tactile sensibility in the human hand: receptive field characteristics of mechanoreceptive units in the glabrous skin area. J Physiol. 1978 Aug;281:101–125. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Johansson R. S., Vallbo A. B. Tactile sensibility in the human hand: relative and absolute densities of four types of mechanoreceptive units in glabrous skin. J Physiol. 1979 Jan;286:283–300. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1979.sp012619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Knibestöl M. Stimulus-response functions of rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors in human glabrous skin area. J Physiol. 1973 Aug;232(3):427–452. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Knibestöl M. Stimulus-response functions of slowly adapting mechanoreceptors in the human glabrous skin area. J Physiol. 1975 Feb;245(1):63–80. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1975.sp010835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Knibestöl M., Vallbo A. B. Single unit analysis of mechanoreceptor activity from the human glabrous skin. Acta Physiol Scand. 1970 Oct;80(2):178–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1970.tb04783.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lindblom U., Lund L. The discharge from vibration-sensitive receptors in the monkey foot. Exp Neurol. 1966 Aug;15(4):401–417. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(66)90138-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lindblom U. Properties of touch receptors in distal glabrous skin of the monkey. J Neurophysiol. 1965 Sep;28(5):966–985. doi: 10.1152/jn.1965.28.5.966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lindblom U. Touch perception threshold in human glabrous skin in terms of displacement amplitude on stimulation with single mechanical pulses. Brain Res. 1974 Dec 27;82(2):205–210. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(74)90599-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mountcastle V. B., LaMotte R. H., Carli G. Detection thresholds for stimuli in humans and monkeys: comparison with threshold events in mechanoreceptive afferent nerve fibers innervating the monkey hand. J Neurophysiol. 1972 Jan;35(1):122–136. doi: 10.1152/jn.1972.35.1.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mountcastle V. B., Talbot W. H., Sakata H., Hyvärinen J. Cortical neuronal mechanisms in flutter-vibration studied in unanesthetized monkeys. Neuronal periodicity and frequency discrimination. J Neurophysiol. 1969 May;32(3):452–484. doi: 10.1152/jn.1969.32.3.452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. SWETS J. A. Is there a sensory threshold? Science. 1961 Jul 21;134(3473):168–177. doi: 10.1126/science.134.3473.168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Talbot W. H., Darian-Smith I., Kornhuber H. H., Mountcastle V. B. The sense of flutter-vibration: comparison of the human capacity with response patterns of mechanoreceptive afferents from the monkey hand. J Neurophysiol. 1968 Mar;31(2):301–334. doi: 10.1152/jn.1968.31.2.301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Vallbo A. B., Hagbarth K. E. Activity from skin mechanoreceptors recorded percutaneously in awake human subjects. Exp Neurol. 1968 Jul;21(3):270–289. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(68)90041-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. WERNER G., MOUNTCASTLE V. B. NEURAL ACTIVITY IN MECHANORECEPTIVE CUTANEOUS AFFERENTS: STIMULUS-RESPONSE RELATIONS, WEBER FUNCTIONS, AND INFORMATION TRANSMISSION. J Neurophysiol. 1965 Mar;28:359–397. doi: 10.1152/jn.1965.28.2.359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES