Peripheral Coding Mechanisms of Touch Velocity

  • Ove Franzén
  • Floyd Thompson
  • Barry Whitsel
  • Michael Young
Part of the Wenner-Gren Center International Symposium Series book series (EMISS, volume 12)


In November 1925 Adrian and Zotterman managed for the first time to record electrical impulses set up in a single fiber originating in a mechanoreceptive end-organ and thereby provide direct evidence for the basic principle that the conduction in sensory nerves is an all-or-none event. They found, furthermore, in a subsequent study that the mechanoreceptors could be dichotomized into rapidly and slowly adapting categories on the basis of the adaptive properties (Adrian and Zotterman, 1926).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adrian, E.D., Y. Zotterman (1926). The impulses produced by sensory nerve endings. Part 3. Impulses set up by Touch and Pressure. J. Physiol., 61, 465–483PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Duncan, G.H., D.A., Dreyer, T.M. McKenna, B.L. Whitsel (1982). Dose- and time-dependent effects of ketamine on S I neurons with cutaneous receptive fields. J. Neurophysiol. 47, 677–699Google Scholar
  3. Ekman, G. (1958). Two generalized ratio scaling methods. J. Psychol., 45, 287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ekman, G. (1961). A simple method for fitting psychophysical power functions. J. Psychol., 51, 343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Franzén, O., U. Lindblom., (1976). Coding of velocity of skin indentation in man and monkey. A perceptual -neurophysiological correlation. In Sensory Functions of the Skin (ed.Y. Zotterman). Pergamon Press, Oxford and New York, pp. 55–65Google Scholar
  6. Johansson, R.S. (1978). Tactile sensibility in the human hand: receptive field characteristics of mechanoreceptive units in the glabrous skin. J. Physiol., 281, 101–123PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Johansson, R.S. (1979). Tactile afferent units with small and well demarcated receptive fields in the glabrous skin area of the human hand. In Sensory Functions of the Skin of Humans (ed. D.R. Kenshalo ). Plenum Publishing Corporation, pp. 129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kalikow, D.N. (1967). Psychofit. Unpublished computer program (Fortran) for the analysis of magnitude estimates. Brown University, RI, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Stevens, S.S. (1956). The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes - loudness. Am. J. Psychol., 69, 1–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Stevens, 5.5. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 64, 153 – 215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stopford, J.S.B. (1918). The variation in distribution of the cutaneous nerves of the hand and digits. J. Anat. (Lond.), 53, 14–25Google Scholar
  12. Vallbo, Å.B., Hagbarth, K.-E. (1968). Activity from skin mechanoreceptors recorded percutaneously in awake human subjects. Expl. Neural., 21, 270–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Werner, G., V.B. Mountcastle (1965). Neural activity in mechanoreceptive cutaneous afferents: Stimulus-response relations, Weber functions, and information transmission. J. Neurophysiol. 28, 359–397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Zwislocki, J.J., W.B. Adams, R.B., Barlow (1969). Intensity characteristics of sensory receptors. Paper presented at the Third International Biophysics Congress of the International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics, Cambridge, Mass., August 1969Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Wenner-Gren Center 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ove Franzén
    • 1
  • Floyd Thompson
    • 2
  • Barry Whitsel
    • 3
  • Michael Young
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity Of UppsalaUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Neuroscience, College of MedicineUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of PhysiologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations