Lingual electrotactile discrimination ability is associated with the presence of specific connective tissue structures (papillae) on the tongue surface.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
09
09
2019
accepted:
21
07
2020
entrez:
9
8
2020
pubmed:
9
8
2020
medline:
9
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Electrical stimulation of nerve endings in the tongue can be used to communicate information to users and has been shown to be highly effective in sensory substitution applications. The anterior tip of the tongue has very small somatosensory receptive fields, comparable to those of the finger tips, allowing for precise two-point discrimination and high tactile sensitivity. However, perception of electrotactile stimuli varies significantly between users, and across the tongue surface. Despite this, previous studies all used uniform electrode grids to stimulate a region of the dorsal-medial tongue surface. In an effort to customize electrode layouts for individual users, and thus improve efficacy for sensory substitution applications, we investigated whether specific neuroanatomical and physiological features of the tongue are associated with enhanced ability to perceive active electrodes. Specifically, the study described here was designed to test whether fungiform papillae density and/or propylthiouracil sensitivity are positively or negatively associated with perceived intensity and/or discrimination ability for lingual electrotactile stimuli. Fungiform papillae number and distribution were determined for 15 participants and they were exposed to patterns of electrotactile stimulation (ETS) and asked to report perceived intensity and perceived number of stimuli. Fungiform papillae number and distribution were then compared to ETS characteristics using comprehensive and rigorous statistical analyses. Our results indicate that fungiform papillae density is correlated with enhanced discrimination ability for electrical stimuli. In contrast, papillae density, on average, is not correlated with perceived intensity of active electrodes. However, results for at least one participant suggest that further research is warranted. Our data indicate that propylthiouracil taster status is not related to ETS perceived intensity or discrimination ability. These data indicate that individuals with higher fungiform papillae number and density in the anterior medial tongue region may be better able to use lingual ETS for sensory substitution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32764778
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237142
pii: PONE-D-19-25378
pmc: PMC7413419
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0237142Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
JM is the president of Sapien LLC, which provided materials and some funding for this study. Two patents are associated with this project: Tongue Stimulation for Communication of Information to a User, Pub. No: US 2018/0256891 AI, September 13, 2018 and Patent No. 9,669,159 June 2017. A product associated with, but not used in the current project is on the market: (https://sapienllc.com/shop/). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Physiol Behav. 2004 Aug;82(1):109-14
pubmed: 15234598
Physiol Behav. 2003 Nov;80(2-3):289-302
pubmed: 14637228
Physiol Behav. 2004 Sep 15;82(2-3):435-45
pubmed: 15276808
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1986 Apr;23(2):20-6
pubmed: 3723423
Hear Res. 2017 Jan;343:72-82
pubmed: 27473505
Am J Audiol. 2008 Dec;17(2):S193-209
pubmed: 19056923
Regul Pept. 1995 Nov 10;59(3):389-98
pubmed: 8577944
Neuroreport. 2007 Dec 3;18(18):1901-4
pubmed: 18007183
Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 2;8(1):9975
pubmed: 29967482
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:1323-6
pubmed: 22254560
Neuroscientist. 2005 Dec;11(6):577-82
pubmed: 16282598
Anat Rec. 1986 Dec;216(4):474-82
pubmed: 3799995
Brain Res. 1992 Jul 17;586(1):162-5
pubmed: 1380878
Exp Brain Res. 2015 Oct;233(10):2777-88
pubmed: 26080756
J Speech Hear Res. 1989 Jun;32(2):331-8
pubmed: 2739385
Penn Dent J (Phila). 2002;102:6-7, 31-2
pubmed: 15487550
Arch Histol Cytol. 2006 Dec;69(4):199-208
pubmed: 17287575
Multisens Res. 2014;27(5-6):313-36
pubmed: 25693299
Neuroreport. 2016 Jul 6;27(10):744-8
pubmed: 27213931
Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Apr 21;11:186
pubmed: 28484380
Am J Otolaryngol. 1989 Sep-Oct;10(5):342-4
pubmed: 2817250
Sci Iran D Comput Sci Eng Electr Eng. 2011 Dec;18(6):1476-1485
pubmed: 28748231
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Sep 11;280(1770):20131680
pubmed: 24026819
J Vis Exp. 2015 Jun 08;(100):e52860
pubmed: 26131644
Neurosci Lett. 2010 Jun 7;476(3):123-6
pubmed: 20398733
Hear Res. 2017 Jan;343:191-201
pubmed: 27613397
Am J Anat. 1985 Jul;173(3):185-201
pubmed: 20726120
Brain Connect. 2013;3(1):87-97
pubmed: 23216162
Neuroreport. 2007 May 7;18(7):645-8
pubmed: 17426591
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2014 Jun;71(12):2241-51
pubmed: 24395053
J Integr Neurosci. 2005 Dec;4(4):537-50
pubmed: 16385646
Neurosci Res. 2010 Feb;66(2):173-9
pubmed: 19896988
Multisens Res. 2017 Jan 1;30(6):579-600
pubmed: 31287085
Neural Regen Res. 2015 Nov;10(11):1717-9
pubmed: 26807088
Exp Brain Res. 2017 Sep;235(9):2679-2688
pubmed: 28589232
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Mar 16;20(6):
pubmed: 30884865
Physiol Behav. 1991 Apr;49(4):757-64
pubmed: 1881981
Cell Tissue Res. 2015 Jul;361(1):233-50
pubmed: 25526698
J Neurosci. 2003 Aug 20;23(20):7510-5
pubmed: 12930789
J Neural Eng. 2012 Aug;9(4):045007
pubmed: 22832032
Front Physiol. 2010 Nov 01;1:136
pubmed: 21423377
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2007 Apr;54(4):711-7
pubmed: 17405378
Neuroimage. 2001 Jul;14(1 Pt 1):129-39
pubmed: 11525322
Annu Rev Physiol. 2017 Feb 10;79:335-356
pubmed: 28192057
Appetite. 2013 Sep;68:124-31
pubmed: 23648895
IEEE Trans Haptics. 2015 Jul-Sep;8(3):298-305
pubmed: 25807569
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Apr;41:36-52
pubmed: 23954750
J Neurophysiol. 1997 Feb;77(2):737-48
pubmed: 9065846
Eur J Neurosci. 2005 Jun;21(12):3334-48
pubmed: 16026471
J Neurophysiol. 2010 Apr;103(4):1741-7
pubmed: 20130037
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2016 Sep 21;34(5):769-87
pubmed: 27567755
Prog Neurobiol. 2008 Nov;86(3):216-44
pubmed: 18824074
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32(6):813-24
pubmed: 25201814
Gait Posture. 2009 Nov;30(4):556-9
pubmed: 19726192
J Am Acad Audiol. 1991 Oct;2(4):214-25
pubmed: 1837739
Physiol Behav. 1994 Dec;56(6):1165-71
pubmed: 7878086
Nature. 1975 Feb 6;253(5491):442-3
pubmed: 1110790
J Comp Neurol. 1991 Feb 8;304(2):172-86
pubmed: 2016415
J Integr Neurosci. 2003 Dec;2(2):159-64
pubmed: 15011268
J Speech Hear Disord. 1989 Feb;54(1):57-67
pubmed: 2521682
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:559-62
pubmed: 19964939
J Appl Oral Sci. 2017 Jul-Aug;25(4):427-435
pubmed: 28877282
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013 Jul;8(4):330-9
pubmed: 22779705
Curr Biol. 2009 Apr 14;19(7):596-601
pubmed: 19361999
Acta Neurol Scand. 1967;43(4):417-26
pubmed: 5583047
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2004;2004:4948-51
pubmed: 17271423
Brain Struct Funct. 2016 Jul;221(6):2891-903
pubmed: 26134685
J Speech Hear Res. 1980 Dec;23(4):769-78
pubmed: 6449633
Exp Brain Res. 2007 May;179(3):409-14
pubmed: 17136521
Physiol Behav. 1990 Jun;47(6):1213-9
pubmed: 2395927
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1998 Oct;35(4):427-30
pubmed: 10220221
Chemosens Percept. 2010 Dec 1;3(3-4):137-148
pubmed: 21157576
J Rehabil Res Dev. 1988 Summer;25(3):41-50
pubmed: 2970542
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Nov;47:469-84
pubmed: 25284337
Nature. 1969 Mar 8;221(5184):963-4
pubmed: 5818337
J Physiol. 2018 Mar 1;596(5):941-956
pubmed: 29285773
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Dec;7(12):541-6
pubmed: 14643370
Microscopy (Oxf). 2013 Apr;62(2):259-70
pubmed: 23103640
Physiol Behav. 2006 Feb 28;87(2):304-13
pubmed: 16368118
Percept Mot Skills. 1972 Aug;35(1):59-67
pubmed: 5054067
Chem Senses. 2000 Jun;25(3):239-46
pubmed: 10866983