Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40916956›Full record

ArticlePsychophysiology2025

CT-Optimal Stimulation Modulates Somatosensory Processing.

A Ribeiro-Carreira, Márcia da-Silva, Ana Rita Pereira, Maria Teresa Carrillo-de-la-Peña, Joana Coutinho, Adriana Sampaio, Alberto J González-Villar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

A Ribeiro-CarreiraPsychological Neuroscience Laboratory (PNL), Research Center in Psychology (CIPsi), School of Psychology, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4589-8032
Márcia da-SilvaPsychological Neuroscience Laboratory (PNL), Research Center in Psychology (CIPsi), School of Psychology, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5315-9280
Ana Rita PereiraPsychological Neuroscience Laboratory (PNL), Research Center in Psychology (CIPsi), School of Psychology, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-9199-0940
Maria Teresa Carrillo-de-la-PeñaBrain and Pain (BaP) Lab, Departamento de Psicoloxía Clínica y Psicobioloxía, Facultade de Psicoloxía, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Joana CoutinhoPsychological Neuroscience Laboratory (PNL), Research Center in Psychology (CIPsi), School of Psychology, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1562-0099
Adriana SampaioPsychological Neuroscience Laboratory (PNL), Research Center in Psychology (CIPsi), School of Psychology, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Alberto J González-VillarPsychological Neuroscience Laboratory (PNL), Research Center in Psychology (CIPsi), School of Psychology, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0009-920X

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
6 · The paper itself

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

Evoked Potentials, SomatosensoryMechanoreceptorsMedian NerveNerve Fibers, UnmyelinatedSomatosensory CortexTouch PerceptionAdultElectric StimulationElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleVibrationYoung Adultaffective touchC‐tactile fiberssomatosensationsomatosensory evoked potentials

Identifiers

PMID40916956
PMCPMC12415938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.