ArticleScientific reports2025
Design of a testbed for mechanical and thermal stimulation in somatosensory studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Innervated Human Skin Equivalent that Electrically Encodes Mechanical and Thermal Stimuli.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Design of a testbed for mechanical and thermal stimulation in somatosensory studies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Abstract
To address the low repeatability and accuracy of traditional technologies for testing the human somatosensory system, this work presents a novel mechatronic testbed. The testbed allows for the delivery of mechanical and thermal stimuli with a high spatial resolution, enabling continuous or discrete stimulation with a small fixed area and in a single experimental session. The testbed was employed to identify the mechanical/thermal innocuous and painful thresholds and the human ability to distinguish the nature of a painful stimulus, on both the hand and the forearm of 12 healthy volunteers. The results demonstrated the capability of the developed testbed to produce a range of forces that can induce different sensations (touch or pain). We found a statistical difference between the innocuous and painful thresholds, regardless of the tested anatomical spot. In this paper, a small thermal stimulation tip was appositely selected to study the reaction to a focused thermal stimulus that has been poorly investigated so far. The results highlighted a statistically significant difference between the two stimulated sites for the cool sensation and the hot pain. Moreover, the painful recognition task was sped up by the use of the developed testbed, which allowed a more fair comparison among the applied stimuli, increasing the accuracy, repeatability, and consistency when compared to the state-of-the art.
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.