ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Auditory clicks elicit equivalent temporal frequency perception to tactile pulses: A cross-modal psychophysical study.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contribution of remote Pacinian corpuscles to flutter-range frequency discrimination in humans.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Multiplexing intensity and frequency sensations for artificial touch by modulating temporal features of electrical pulse trains.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both hearing and touch are sensitive to the frequency of mechanical oscillations-sound waves and tactile vibrations, respectively. The mounting evidence of parallels in temporal frequency processing between the two sensory systems led us to directly address the question of perceptual frequency equivalence between touch and hearing using stimuli of simple and more complex temporal features. In a cross-modal psychophysical paradigm, subjects compared the perceived frequency of pulsatile mechanical vibrations to that elicited by pulsatile acoustic (click) trains, and vice versa. Non-invasive pulsatile stimulation designed to excite a fixed population of afferents was used to induce desired temporal spike trains at frequencies spanning flutter up to vibratory hum (>50 Hz). The cross-modal perceived frequency for regular test pulse trains of either modality was a close match to the presented stimulus physical frequency up to 100 Hz. We then tested whether the recently discovered "burst gap" temporal code for frequency, that is shared by the two senses, renders an equivalent cross-modal frequency perception. When subjects compared trains comprising pairs of pulses (bursts) in one modality against regular trains in the other, the cross-sensory equivalent perceptual frequency best corresponded to the silent interval between the successive bursts in both auditory and tactile test stimuli. These findings suggest that identical acoustic and vibrotactile pulse trains, regardless of pattern, elicit equivalent frequencies, and imply analogous temporal frequency computation strategies in both modalities. This perceptual correspondence raises the possibility of employing a cross-modal comparison as a robust standard to overcome the prevailing methodological limitations in psychophysical investigations and strongly encourages cross-modal approaches for transmitting sensory information such as translating pitch into a similar pattern of vibration on the skin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.