ArticlePsychophysiology2025
CT-Optimal Stimulation Modulates Somatosensory Processing.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CT-Optimal Stimulation Modulates Somatosensory Processing.Psychophysiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Touch has an affective dimension, conveyed through low-threshold mechanoreceptors known as C-tactile (CT) afferents, which are activated by gentle, caress-like contact. While there is evidence that these fibers modulate nociceptive input, their influence on the processing of other somatosensory afferent activity remains largely unknown. In this study, we explored how slow brushing (CT-optimal stimulation) modulates somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) elicited by electrical stimulation of the median nerve (occurring at 0.7 to 3.7 s after stimulus onset), compared to vibration (at 200 Hz) and no touch, in 30 healthy participants. CT-targeted stimulation was delivered using a robotic arm developed in-house equipped with a cosmetic brush, which applied slow brushing movements at CT-optimal speeds (~3 cm/s) over the dorsal forearm. Vibrotactile stimulation, targeting A-beta fibers, was delivered using vibration motors adjacent to the brushed area, with intensity calibrated to match the perceived strength of brushing. SEPs were recorded under these three conditions. Our results showed no differences between slow brushing, vibration, and no touch conditions in the amplitude of early SEPs recorded over the somatosensory cortex (N20, P25, N30, and P45), which may indicate that CT stimulation does not affect early cortical processing of somatosensory information. However, a reduced frontocentral P150 SEP component was observed during slow brushing compared to the other conditions. This finding suggests that CT stimulation may reduce somatosensory input transmitted through the lemniscal system, possibly engaging brain areas involved in attentional and cognitive processing.
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.