使用光栅方向测试评估空间语言触觉灵敏度
Summary
这项工作说明了使用光栅方向测试评估空间语言触觉灵敏度的标准程序和R指数阈值确定。
Abstract
使用光栅定向测试（6种不同的工具将光栅尺寸从0.20-1.25 mm增加）计算R指数估计的单个阈值，以评估空间语言触觉灵敏度。在实验过程中，受试者被蒙住眼睛，并要求指定放置在舌头上的光栅（水平或垂直）的方向。R指数基于信号检测理论（SDT），它是与替代刺激（噪声，例如，不正确的方向）相比正确识别目标刺激（信号，例如，正确方向）的估计概率。计算出每个主体和每个工具维度的 R 指数值后，可以基于单侧 R 指数临界值，通过插值紧邻既定边界值（通常为 75%）的两个 R 指数，得出单个阈值。该程序在医学领域有助于研究口腔触觉敏感性，言语清晰度和吞咽障碍之间的关系，以及在感官和消费者研究中探索质地感知，食物偏好和饮食行为的个体差异。
Introduction
食物的质地和口感在点赞中起着重要作用1，2，3，4，虽然研究发现由于咀嚼行为2，5，唾液流量和组成等因素，质地感知存在差异6，7，但可用于评估口腔触觉受体（机械感受器）变化的方法有限。口腔中含有不同类型的机械感受器：默克尔受体，鲁菲尼圆柱体和迈斯纳小体8。机械感受器可以分为两组：缓慢适应和快速适应。缓慢适应的机械感受器（鲁菲尼圆柱体和默克尔受体）在受到刺激时连续产生信号。相反，快速适应的机械感受器（迈斯纳小体）用信号对刺激的开始和结束做出反应。触觉敏锐度在舌表面和个体之间差异很大，可能是由于机械感受器敏感性的差异。口腔中机械感受器的位置和数量，机械感受器的空间排列/密度（空间敏锐度）的差异，或激活时灵敏度的差异可能是这种个体内和个体间变异的原因。已经发表了几种评估和筛选口腔中机械感受器灵敏度变化的方法，包括von Frey细丝9，10，字母识别11，12，光栅取向测试13和柔性电极阵列14，15。光栅方向测试需要将具有不同凹槽宽度的方形光栅（图1，图2）放置在被蒙住眼睛的物体的舌头上。它们指示受试者是否认为光栅处于水平或垂直方向。响应用于根据受试者区分不同光栅尺寸的方向的能力来计算平均阈值。
Protocol
所有参与者都签署了知情的书面同意书。这项研究得到了米兰大学伦理委员会的批准（第48/19号），并根据《赫尔辛基宣言》进行。 1. 实验人员培训 拿起光栅工具，在放置在秤上的海绵上施加100克的力。注：本研究中使用的光栅工具原理图见图1 重复此过程至少10次，以减少在测试期间在实验者内部和实验者之间对受试者舌头施加的光?…
Representative Results
共有70名健康成年人（年龄范围= 19-33岁;平均年龄= 22.0;52.9%女性）参与了这项研究，如Appiani等人（2020）21所示。 例如， 图 4 中报告了平方 0.75 mm 按年龄划分的 R 指数分布。每个点代表一个不同的主题。虚线上方的受试者（截止值：0.7426）是正确识别光栅方向（更敏感）的受试者。 图 5 中报告…
Discussion
用于测量触觉敏锐度的有效仪器很少10，11，13，22。Von Frey细丝已被证明是测量皮肤和口腔触觉敏锐度的充分方法10，21，22。但是，这些仪器测量的舌触觉敏锐度与光栅方向测试21不同。Von Frey 灯丝测量接触检测，…
Disclosures
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Acknowledgements
我们感谢所有参与者，志愿者和其他参与研究的人。我们感谢Sandra Stolzenbach Wæhrens和Wender Bredie（哥本哈根大学）设计了当前光栅方向测试中使用的正方形。这项研究由米兰大学资助，Piano di sostegno alla ricerca 2018。
Materials
| Custom-made squares | University of Reading; University of Copenhagen | Squares of 1 cm2 from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) | |
| Disinfenctant solution (20% sodium hypochlorite) | Amuchina, Angelini S.p.A., Roma, Italy | ||
| Eye masks | Various | ||
| Gloves | Various | ||
| Lab coat | Various | ||
| Plastic cup for drinking water | Various | ||
| Excel | Microsoft |
References
- Guinard, J. X., Mazzucchelli, R. The sensory perception of texture and mouthfeel. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 7 (7), 213-219 (1996).
- Jeltema, M., Beckley, J., Vahalik, J. Food texture assessment and preference based on mouth behavior. Food Quality and Preference. 52, 160-171 (2016).
- Scott, C. L., Downey, R. G. Types of food aversions: animal, vegetable, and texture. The Journal of Psychology. 141 (2), 127-134 (2007).
- Laureati, M., et al. Individual differences in texture preferences among European children: Development and validation of the Child Food Texture Preference Questionnaire (CFTPQ). Food Quality and Preference. 80, 103828 (2020).
- de Lavergne, M. D., Derks, J. A., Ketel, E. C., de Wijk, R. A., Stieger, M. Eating behaviour explains differences between individuals in dynamic texture perception of sausages. Food Quality and Preference. 41, 189-200 (2015).
- Engelen, L., de Wijk, R. A. Oral processing and texture perception. Food Oral Processing: Fundamentals of Eating and Sensory Perception. 8, 157-176 (2012).
- Stokes, J. R., Boehm, M. W., Baier, S. K. Oral processing, texture and mouthfeel: From rheology to tribology and beyond. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science. 18 (4), 349-359 (2013).
- Engelen, L. Oral receptors. Food Oral Processing: Fundamentals of Eating and Sensory Perception. , 15-38 (2012).
- Yackinous, C., Guinard, J. X. Relation between PROP taster status and fat perception, touch, and olfaction. Physiology & Behavior. 72 (3), 427-437 (2001).
- Etter, N. M., Breen, S. P., Alcala, M. I., Ziegler, G. R., Hayes, J. E. Assessment of midline lingual point-pressure somatosensation using Von Frey hair monofilaments. Journal of Visualized Experiments: JoVE. (156), (2020).
- Essick, G. K., Chen, C. C., Kelly, D. G. A letter-recognition task to assess lingual tactile acuity. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 57 (11), 1324-1330 (1999).
- Essick, G. K., Chopra, A., Guest, S., McGlone, F. Lingual tactile acuity, taste perception, and the density and diameter of fungiform papillae in female subjects. Physiology & Behavior. 80 (2-3), 289-302 (2003).
- Van Boven, R. W., Johnson, K. O. The limit of tactile spatial resolution in humans: grating orientation discrimination at the lip, tongue, and finger. Neurology. 44 (12), 2361 (1994).
- Moritz, J., Turk, P., Williams, J. D., Stone-Roy, L. M. Perceived intensity and discrimination ability for lingual electrotactile stimulation depends on location and orientation of electrodes. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 11, 186 (2017).
- Bach-y-Rita, P., Kaczmarek, K. A., Tyler, M. E., Garcia-Lara, J. Form perception with a 49-point electrotactile stimulus array on the tongue: a technical note. Journal Of Rehabilitation Research and Development. 35, 427-430 (1998).
- O’Mahony, M. Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly treatment of response bias, rating and ranking R-index tests and their relationship to signal detection. Journal of Sensory Studies. 7 (1), 1-47 (1992).
- Lee, H. S., Van Hout, D. Quantification of sensory and food quality: The R-index analysis. Journal of Food Science. 74 (6), 57-64 (2009).
- Bi, J., O’Mahony, M. Updated and extended table for testing the significance of the R-index. Journal of Sensory Studies. 22, 713-720 (2007).
- Bertoli, S., et al. Taste sensitivity, nutritional status and metabolic syndrome: Implication in weight loss dietary interventions. World Journal of Diabetes. 5 (5), 717 (2014).
- Robinson, K. M., Klein, B. P., Lee, S. Y. Utilizing the R-index measure for threshold testing in model caffeine solutions. Food Quality and Preference. 16 (4), 283-289 (2005).
- Appiani, M., Rabitti, N. S., Methven, L., Cattaneo, C., Laureati, M. Assessment of lingual tactile sensitivity in children and adults: Methodological suitability and challenges. Foods. 9 (11), 1594 (2020).
- Cattaneo, C., Liu, J., Bech, A. C., Pagliarini, E., Bredie, W. L. Cross-cultural differences in lingual tactile acuity, taste sensitivity phenotypical markers, and preferred oral processing behaviors. Food Quality and Preference. 80, 103803 (2020).
- Abraira, V. E., Ginty, D. D. The sensory neurons of touch. Neuron. 79 (4), 618-639 (2013).
- Johnson, K. O., Phillips, J. R. Tactile spatial resolution. I. Two-point discrimination, gap detection, grating resolution, and letter recognition. Journal of Neurophysiology. 46 (6), 1177-1192 (1981).
- Phillips, J. R., Johnson, K. O. Tactile spatial resolution. II. Neural representation of bars, edges, and gratings in monkey primary afferents. Journal of Neurophysiology. 46 (6), 1192-1203 (1981).
Cite This Article
Rabitti, N. S., Appiani, M., Cattaneo, C., Ford, R., Laureati, M. Assessment of Spatial Lingual Tactile Sensitivity using a Gratings Orientation Test. J. Vis. Exp. (175), e62898, doi:10.3791/62898 (2021).