↓ Skip to main content

Perceived Intensity and Discrimination Ability for Lingual Electrotactile Stimulation Depends on Location and Orientation of Electrodes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Perceived Intensity and Discrimination Ability for Lingual Electrotactile Stimulation Depends on Location and Orientation of Electrodes
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00186
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel Moritz, Philip Turk, John D. Williams, Leslie M. Stone-Roy

Abstract

Malfunctioning sensory systems can severely impact quality of life and repair is not always possible. One solution, called sensory substitution, is to use another sensory system to bring lost information to the brain. This approach often involves the use of bioengineered devices that electrically stimulate somatosensory fibers. Interestingly, the tongue is an ideal location for electrotactile stimulation due to its dense innervation, moisture, and protected environment. Success with transmitting visual and vestibular information through the tongue indicates promise for future applications. However, sensitivity and discrimination ability varies between individuals and across the tongue surface complicating efforts to produce reliable and consistent sensations. The goals of the present study were to investigate these differences more precisely to better understand the mechanosensory innervation of the tongue so that future electrotactile devices can be designed more effectively. Specifically, we tested whether stimulation of certain regions of the tongue consistently result in better perception, whether the spacing of stimulating electrodes affects perceived intensity, and whether the orientation of electrodes affects perceived intensity and discrimination. To test these hypotheses, we built a custom tongue stimulation device, recruited 25 participants, and collected perceived intensity and discrimination data. We then subjected the data to thorough statistical analyses. Consistent with previous studies, we found that stimulation of the anterior medial tongue region was perceived as more intense than stimulation of lateral and posterior regions. This region also had the best discrimination ability for electrodes. Dividing the stimulated tongue area into 16 distinct regions allowed us to compare perception ability between anterior and posterior regions, medial and lateral regions, and the left and right sides of the tongue. Stimulation of the most anterior and medial tongue resulted in the highest perceived intensity and the best discrimination ability. Most individuals were able to perceive and discriminate electrotactile stimulation better on one side of the tongue, and orientation of stimulating electrodes affected perception. In conclusion, the present studies reveal new information about the somatosensory innervation of the tongue and will assist the design of future electrotactile tongue stimulation devices that will help provide sensory information to people with damaged sensory systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 18%
Psychology 4 14%
Computer Science 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 11 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 December 2019.
All research outputs
#12,738,743
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,433
of 7,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,028
of 309,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#106
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 309,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.