Cargando…

Two-Point Orientation Discrimination Versus the Traditional Two-Point Test for Tactile Spatial Acuity Assessment

Two-point discrimination is widely used to measure tactile spatial acuity. The validity of the two-point threshold as a spatial acuity measure rests on the assumption that two points can be distinguished from one only when the two points are sufficiently separated to evoke spatially distinguishable...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tong, Jonathan, Mao, Oliver, Goldreich, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24062677
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00579
_version_ 1782284316649193472
author Tong, Jonathan
Mao, Oliver
Goldreich, Daniel
author_facet Tong, Jonathan
Mao, Oliver
Goldreich, Daniel
author_sort Tong, Jonathan
collection PubMed
description Two-point discrimination is widely used to measure tactile spatial acuity. The validity of the two-point threshold as a spatial acuity measure rests on the assumption that two points can be distinguished from one only when the two points are sufficiently separated to evoke spatially distinguishable foci of neural activity. However, some previous research has challenged this view, suggesting instead that two-point task performance benefits from an unintended non-spatial cue, allowing spuriously good performance at small tip separations. We compared the traditional two-point task to an equally convenient alternative task in which participants attempt to discern the orientation (vertical or horizontal) of two points of contact. We used precision digital readout calipers to administer two-interval forced-choice versions of both tasks to 24 neurologically healthy adults, on the fingertip, finger base, palm, and forearm. We used Bayesian adaptive testing to estimate the participants’ psychometric functions on the two tasks. Traditional two-point performance remained significantly above chance levels even at zero point separation. In contrast, two-point orientation discrimination approached chance as point separation approached zero, as expected for a valid measure of tactile spatial acuity. Traditional two-point performance was so inflated at small point separations that 75%-correct thresholds could be determined on all tested sites for fewer than half of participants. The 95%-correct thresholds on the two tasks were similar, and correlated with receptive field spacing. In keeping with previous critiques, we conclude that the traditional two-point task provides an unintended non-spatial cue, resulting in spuriously good performance at small spatial separations. Unlike two-point discrimination, two-point orientation discrimination rigorously measures tactile spatial acuity. We recommend the use of two-point orientation discrimination for neurological assessment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3772339
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37723392013-09-23 Two-Point Orientation Discrimination Versus the Traditional Two-Point Test for Tactile Spatial Acuity Assessment Tong, Jonathan Mao, Oliver Goldreich, Daniel Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Two-point discrimination is widely used to measure tactile spatial acuity. The validity of the two-point threshold as a spatial acuity measure rests on the assumption that two points can be distinguished from one only when the two points are sufficiently separated to evoke spatially distinguishable foci of neural activity. However, some previous research has challenged this view, suggesting instead that two-point task performance benefits from an unintended non-spatial cue, allowing spuriously good performance at small tip separations. We compared the traditional two-point task to an equally convenient alternative task in which participants attempt to discern the orientation (vertical or horizontal) of two points of contact. We used precision digital readout calipers to administer two-interval forced-choice versions of both tasks to 24 neurologically healthy adults, on the fingertip, finger base, palm, and forearm. We used Bayesian adaptive testing to estimate the participants’ psychometric functions on the two tasks. Traditional two-point performance remained significantly above chance levels even at zero point separation. In contrast, two-point orientation discrimination approached chance as point separation approached zero, as expected for a valid measure of tactile spatial acuity. Traditional two-point performance was so inflated at small point separations that 75%-correct thresholds could be determined on all tested sites for fewer than half of participants. The 95%-correct thresholds on the two tasks were similar, and correlated with receptive field spacing. In keeping with previous critiques, we conclude that the traditional two-point task provides an unintended non-spatial cue, resulting in spuriously good performance at small spatial separations. Unlike two-point discrimination, two-point orientation discrimination rigorously measures tactile spatial acuity. We recommend the use of two-point orientation discrimination for neurological assessment. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3772339/ /pubmed/24062677 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00579 Text en Copyright © 2013 Tong, Mao and Goldreich. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Tong, Jonathan
Mao, Oliver
Goldreich, Daniel
Two-Point Orientation Discrimination Versus the Traditional Two-Point Test for Tactile Spatial Acuity Assessment
title Two-Point Orientation Discrimination Versus the Traditional Two-Point Test for Tactile Spatial Acuity Assessment
title_full Two-Point Orientation Discrimination Versus the Traditional Two-Point Test for Tactile Spatial Acuity Assessment
title_fullStr Two-Point Orientation Discrimination Versus the Traditional Two-Point Test for Tactile Spatial Acuity Assessment
title_full_unstemmed Two-Point Orientation Discrimination Versus the Traditional Two-Point Test for Tactile Spatial Acuity Assessment
title_short Two-Point Orientation Discrimination Versus the Traditional Two-Point Test for Tactile Spatial Acuity Assessment
title_sort two-point orientation discrimination versus the traditional two-point test for tactile spatial acuity assessment
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772339/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24062677
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00579
work_keys_str_mv AT tongjonathan twopointorientationdiscriminationversusthetraditionaltwopointtestfortactilespatialacuityassessment
AT maooliver twopointorientationdiscriminationversusthetraditionaltwopointtestfortactilespatialacuityassessment
AT goldreichdaniel twopointorientationdiscriminationversusthetraditionaltwopointtestfortactilespatialacuityassessment