Fine surface‐texture discrimination ability depends on the number of mechanoreceptors participating in the discrimination task

1996 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 2771-2771 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tetsu Miyaoka ◽  
Masahiro Ohka ◽  
Takuya Kawamura ◽  
Yasunaga Mitsuya
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John WG Seamons ◽  
Marconi S Barbosa ◽  
Jonathan D Victor ◽  
Dominique Coy ◽  
Ted Maddess

1987 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Buchanan ◽  
Moshe Givon ◽  
Arieh Goldman

For purposes of product testing, several tasks have been used to measure subjects’ discrimination ability (i.e., their ability to distinguish between two slightly different product formulations). Three of the more common tasks are repeat paired comparisons, triangle tests, and preference rankings. In this empirical study, the properties of these three tasks are compared. The repeat paired comparison test is found to be the most sensitive discrimination task, in that subjects demonstrate the greatest ability in distinguishing between formulations, and preference ranking is the least sensitive. The finding that discrimination ability measured by triangle tests is significantly correlated with that measured by paired comparisons lends support to the validity of consistent preference discrimination testing.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ishita Arun ◽  
Leslee Lazar

ABSTRACTThe influence of language on perceptual processes, referred to as the Whorfian hypothesis, has been a contentious issue. Cross-linguistic research and lab-based experiments have shown that verbal labels can facilitate perceptual and discriminatory processes, mostly in visual and auditory modalities. Here, we investigated whether verbal labels improve performance in a tactile texture discrimination task using natural textures. We also explored whether the grammatical category of these verbal labels plays a role in discrimination ability. In our experiments, we asked the participants to discriminate between pairs of textures presented to the fingertip after a five-day training phase. During the training phase, the tactile textures and English pseudowords were co-presented consistently in the congruent (experimental) condition and inconsistently in the incongruent (control) condition, allowing them to form implicit associations only in the former condition. The pseudoword verbal labels belonged to two grammatical categories, verb-like and noun-like. We found an improvement in the texture discrimination ability only for the congruent condition, irrespective of the grammatical category.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 951-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Machizawa ◽  
R. Patey ◽  
D. Kim ◽  
T. Watanabe

2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. 2334-2350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wan Jiang ◽  
François Tremblay ◽  
C. Elaine Chapman

Caudal primary motor cortex (M1, area 4) is sensitive to cutaneous inputs, but the extent to which the physical details of complex stimuli are encoded is not known. We investigated the sensitivity of M1 neurons (4 Macaca mulatta monkeys) to textured stimuli (smooth/rough or rough/rougher) during the performance of a texture discrimination task and, for some cells, during a no-task condition (same surfaces; no response). The recordings were made from the hemisphere contralateral to the stimulated digits; the motor response (sensory decision) was made with the nonstimulated arm. Most M1 cells were modulated during surface scanning in the task (88%), but few of these were texture-related (24%). In contrast, 44% of M1 neurons were texture related in the no-task condition. Recordings from the neighboring primary somatosensory cortex (S1), the potential source of texture-related signals to M1, showed that S1 neurons were significantly more likely to be texture related during the task (57 vs 24%) than M1. No difference was observed in the no-task condition (52 vs. 44%). In these recordings, the details about surface texture were relevant for S1 but not for M1. We suggest that tactile inputs to M1 were selectively suppressed when the animals were engaged in the task. S1 was spared these controls, as the same inputs were task-relevant. Taken together, we suggest that the suppressive effects are most likely exerted directly at the level of M1, possibly through the activation of a top-down gating mechanism specific to motor set/intention. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Sensory feedback is important for motor control, but we have little knowledge of the contribution of sensory inputs to M1 discharge during behavior. We showed that M1 neurons signal changes in tactile texture, but mainly outside the context of a texture discrimination task. Tactile inputs to M1 were selectively suppressed during the task because this input was not relevant for the recorded hemisphere, which played no role in generating the discrimination response.


2005 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 842-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sliman Bensmaïa ◽  
Mark Hollins
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document