Cited by 47Tactile and Sensory InteractionsIon Channels and ReceptorsNeural dynamics and brain function

A simple model of mechanotransduction in primate glabrous skin

Open access
Dong, Yi, Mihalas, Stefan, Kim, Sung Soo, Yoshioka, Takashi, Bensmaia, Sliman, Niebur, Ernst·2013·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Tactile stimulation of the hand evokes highly precise and repeatable patterns of activity in mechanoreceptive afferents; the strength (i.e., firing rate) and timing of these responses have been shown to convey stimulus information. To achieve an understanding of the mechanisms underlying the representation of tactile stimuli in the nerve, we developed a two-stage computational model consisting of a nonlinear mechanical transduction stage followed by a generalized integrate-and-fire mechanism. The model improves upon a recently published counterpart in two important ways. First, complexity is dramatically reduced (at least one order of magnitude fewer parameters). Second, the model comprises a saturating nonlinearity and therefore can be applied to a much wider range of stimuli. We show that both the rate and timing of afferent responses are predicted with remarkable precision and that observed adaptation patterns and threshold behavior are well captured. We conclude that the responses of mechanoreceptive afferents can be understood using a very parsimonious mechanistic model, which can then be used to accurately simulate the responses of afferent populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.00395.2012

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The combined population response is determined not only by contact pressure but also by its first and second derivatives.

    “The combined population response is thus determined not only by contact pressure but also by its first and second derivatives (Dong et al., 2013;Kim et al., 2010).”

    From Biomimetic approaches to bionic touch through a peripheral nerve interface (2015) · cites this paper as Dong et al., 2013

    Materials and Methods models responses using indentation displacement and its first and second derivatives; Results shows that their contributions differ across afferent types. The paper does not establish the same relationship for contact pressure or explicitly model a combined population response. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The responses of SA1 afferents roughly track contact pressure, while those of RA and PC afferents track changes in pressure.

    “While the responses of SA1 afferents roughly track contact pressure, those of RA and PC afferents track changes in pressure.”

    From Biomimetic approaches to bionic touch through a peripheral nerve interface (2015) · cites this paper as Dong et al., 2013

    The Results (page not provided) say SA afferents are primarily driven by indentation displacement, RA afferents by its velocity, and PC afferents strongly by acceleration. This supports the broad distinction between sustained deformation and changing stimulation, but the paper describes indentation and skin deformation, not contact pressure or changes in pressure. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The peripheral response to an indented object is not just proportional to the indentation depth; RA and PC afferents also respond to the first two derivatives of time-varying depth.

    “The peripheral response to an indented object is not just proportional to the indentation depth as RA and PC afferents also respond to the first two derivatives of time-varying depth (Dong et al., 2013;Kim et al., 2010).”

    From Biomimetic approaches to bionic touch through a peripheral nerve interface (2015) · cites this paper as Dong et al., 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chubbuck J. Small motion biological stimulator. APL Tech Digest 5: 18–23, 1966 [Google Scholar]
  2. Dong Y. Analysis and parameter estimation of spiking neuronal systems. PhD Thesis, Johns Hopkins Dept. of Neuroscience, Baltimore, MD, 2010 [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dong, Y., Mihalas, S., Kim, S. S., Yoshioka, T., Bensmaia, S., & Niebur, E.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Zanvyl Krieger Mind/Brain Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland;
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2013-03-01
Volume
109
Issue
5
Pages
1350-1359
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2097581740
Cited by
47
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ey016281-08)
  • Office of Naval Research
  • National Eye Institute (R01-EY016281)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (5R01-NS-40596, R01NS18787, R01NS018787, R01NS040596)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Ion Channels and Receptors
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
mechanotransduction, tactile perception, glabrous skin, computational model, integrate-and-fire neurons, saturating nonlinearity, sensory adaptation, tactile threshold
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Adaptation, Physiological, Animals, Macaca mulatta, Mechanoreceptors, Models, Neurological, Reaction Time, Sensory Thresholds, Skin, Nonlinear Dynamics, Mechanotransduction, Cellular

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