Cited by 310Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Cross-modal plasticity revealed by electrotactile stimulation of the tongue in the congenitally blind

Ptito, M.·2005·Brain

Abstract

In sensory substitution, information acquired with one sensory modality is used to accomplish a task which is normally subserved primarily by another sensory modality. We used PET to study cross-modal plasticity in the congenitally blind, using electrotactile stimulation of the tongue. Blind (n = 6) and sighted blindfolded controls (n = 5) were scanned before and after they were trained to use their tongue in a Snellen orientation detection task. Results showed that both groups of subjects learned the discrimination orientation task after seven 1 h training sessions. Before training, no significant changes in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) were observed in the occipital cortex in either group. In sharp contrast, activity in the occipital cortex increased after practice for the blind, but not for the sighted, providing evidence for training-induced plasticity in the blind. An inter-regional correlation analysis showed that task-related rCBF changes in left posterior parietal cortex were positively correlated with rCBF changes in the occipital area of the trained blind. These data reveal that cross-modal plasticity in the blind develops rapidly and that the occipital cortex is part of a functional neural network for tactile discrimination in conjunction with the posterior parietal cortex. Our data further show that the tongue can act as a portal to convey somatosensory information to visual cortex.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/awh380

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ptito, M.
Affiliations
Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Ptito, M.
Venue
Brain
Published
2005-01-05
Volume
128
Issue
3
Pages
606-614
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2106810646
Cited by
310
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 25
FWCI
5.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Sundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
cross-modal plasticity, congenital blindness, sensory substitution, electrocutaneous stimulation, tongue, occipital cortex, posterior parietal cortex, regional cerebral blood flow, visual cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Blindness, Brain, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Discrimination, Psychological, Discrimination Learning, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Male, Nerve Net, Neuronal Plasticity, Orientation, Parietal Lobe, Sensory Aids, Tongue, Touch, Visual Cortex, Positron-Emission Tomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review