ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2026
From head to toe: Efficient somatosensory mapping with fast stimulation and multivariate pattern analysis.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) measured with electroencephalography (EEG) are widely used to study cortical responses to touch but most research has limited the focus on few body parts, typically a finger, and applied time-consuming testing protocols. To determine whether faster stimulation protocols can improve efficiency without compromising SEP and multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) results, we compared fast and slow tactile stimulation across four body parts. Methods: Fifteen participants received vibrotactile stimulation on the finger, hand, cheek, and foot while EEG was recorded. We compared a traditional "slow" stimulation protocol (800-1200 ms inter-stimulus intervals) with a "fast" protocol (300-500 ms). We compared temporal and topographical aspects between SEP and MVPA. Results: Both stimulation protocols produced highly similar SEP components (P100, N140, P200), topographies, and classification results, while the fast protocol reduced testing time by about 60%. SEPs revealed systematic body-part differences, with earlier components for cheek stimulation and delayed responses for the foot. Multivariate classification distinguished body parts with accuracies up to ∼50-55% (chance: 25%), peaking around 100 ms after stimulus onset. Classifier weight maps closely matched SEP topographies over centroparietal electrodes, indicating that classification relied on physiologically meaningful somatosensory signals. Classification accuracy peaked around 100 ms after stimulus onset, coinciding with the SEP P100 component, but declined gradually thereafter, suggesting that early somatosensory responses contain particularly informative multivariate patterns that generalize over time. Conclusions: Faster stimulation protocols substantially increase efficiency without compromising interpretability. Combining classical SEP analysis with multivariate classification provides complementary insights and offers a powerful framework for mapping somatosensory representations across the body.
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.