Advertisement

A Holistic Model of Human Touch

  • Dianne T. V. Pawluk
  • Robert D. Howe

Abstract

The peripheral mechanoreceptive system in the skin consists of several functional components: the mechanical response of the skin, the mechanical response of the end organ, the creation of the generator potential, the initiation of an action potential, and (for some units) the branching structure of the afferent fibers5. Experimentally, only the stimulus applied to the surface of the skin and the final afferent nerve fiber response (as the signal propagates toward the central nervous system) can be measured. The system must therefore be treated as a series of black boxes for which we only have access to the first input and the last output. Previous research has focused on one or another of these boxes and related them to the final output, despite the fact that the components act together to produce the response and cannot be treated in isolation. Here we examine the system as a whole, with the goal of attributing different aspects of the final nerve fiber response to the various components of the system. Our approach is to determine the components which are necessary and sufficient to describe this overall system response.

Keywords

Frequency Response Function Holistic Model Nerve Membrane FAil Unit Huxley Equation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dandekar, K. and Srinivasan, M.A. (1995). A Three Dimensional Finite Element Model of the Monkey Fingertip for Predicting Responses of Slowly Adapting Mechanoreceptors. Summer Bioengineering Conference o/the ASME, Beaver Creek, CO.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freeman, A.W. and Johnson, K.O. (1982). Cutaneous Mechnoreceptors in Macaque Monkey: Temporal Discharge Patterns Evoked by Vibration, and a Receptor Model. J. Physiology, 323, 21–41.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hodgkin, A.L. and Huxley, A.F. (1952). A Quantitative Description of Membrane Current and Its Application to Conduction and Excitation in Nerve. J. Physiology, 117, 500–544.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johansson, R.S., Landström, U. and Lundström, R. (1982). Response of Mechanoreceptive Afferent Units in the Glabrous Skin of the Human Hand to Sinusoidal Skin Displacements. Brain Research. 244, 17–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, K.O., Phillips, J.R. and Freeman, A.W. (1985). Mechanisms Underlying the Spatiotemporal Response Properties of Cutaneous Mechanoreceptive Afferents. In Developmet. Organization, and Processing in Somatosensory Pathways. Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1 I I - 122.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nemoto, I., Miyazaki, S., Saito, M. and Utsunomiya, T. (1975). Behavior of Solutions of the Hodgkin-Huxley Equations and Its Relation to Properties of Mechanoreceptors. Biophysical Journal, 15. 469–479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phillips, J.R. and Johnson, K.O. (1981). Tactile Spatial Resolution III. A Continuum Mechanics Model of Skin Predicting Mechanoreceptor Responses to Bars, Edges, and Gratings. J. Neurophysiology. 46, 1204–1225.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dianne T. V. Pawluk
    • 1
  • Robert D. Howe
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Engineering and Applied SciencesHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations