↓ Skip to main content

Subject-level differences in reported locations of cutaneous tactile and nociceptive stimuli

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Subject-level differences in reported locations of cutaneous tactile and nociceptive stimuli
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00325
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Steenbergen, Jan R. Buitenweg, Jörg Trojan, Bart Klaassen, Peter H. Veltink

Abstract

Recent theoretical advances on the topic of body representations have raised the question whether spatial perception of touch and nociception involve the same representations. Various authors have established that subjective localizations of touch and nociception are displaced in a systematic manner. The relation between veridical stimulus locations and localizations can be described in the form of a perceptual map; these maps differ between subjects. Recently, evidence was found for a common set of body representations to underlie spatial perception of touch and slow and fast pain, which receive information from modality specific primary representations. There are neurophysiological clues that the various cutaneous senses may not share the same primary representation. If this is the case, then differences in primary representations between touch and nociception may cause subject-dependent differences in perceptual maps of these modalities. We studied localization of tactile and nociceptive sensations on the forearm using electrocutaneous stimulation. The perceptual maps of these modalities differed at the group level. When assessed for individual subjects, the differences localization varied in nature between subjects. The agreement of perceptual maps of the two modalities was moderate. These findings are consistent with a common internal body representation underlying spatial perception of touch and nociception. The subject level differences suggest that in addition to these representations other aspects, possibly differences in primary representation and/or the influence of stimulus parameters, lead to differences in perceptual maps in individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 31%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Professor 2 7%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Neuroscience 6 21%
Psychology 5 17%
Computer Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,174,175
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,517
of 7,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,217
of 244,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#273
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.