Bt. Osullivan et al., A PET STUDY OF SOMATOSENSORY DISCRIMINATION IN MAN - MICROGEOMETRY VERSUS MACROGEOMETRY, European journal of neuroscience, 6(1), 1994, pp. 137-148
The regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) was measured with O-15-butanol
and positron emission tomography (PET) in 10 healthy subjects in orde
r to compare cerebral activation involved in the somatosensory discrim
ination of microgeometric features with cerebral activation associated
with the discrimination of macrogeometric features. Subjects performe
d two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) discriminations of pairs of st
imuli from a series of quantified standardized stimuli that differed i
n roughness (microgeometry), and a separate 2-AFC task of smooth tacti
le stimuli that differed in length (macrogeometry). Results are presen
ted from three conditions: (1) a roughness discrimination task; (2) a
length discrimination task; and (3) a control trial in which subjects
were required to reproduce similar exploratory finger movements only,
but without a specific stimulus to feel. Mean subtraction images were
computed using the computerized adjustable brain atlas of Greitz et al
. (1991, J. Comput. Assisted Tomogr., 15, 26 - 38) and areas of signif
icant blood flow change were identified. Both the roughness and the le
ngth discrimination tasks activated overlapping cortical fields contra
laterally in the anterior and posterior lip of the postcentral sulcus.
However, in the length discrimination, activation of the posterior li
p of the postcentral sulcus extended deeper into the sulcus and there
was also a separate additional area of activation in the anterior part
of the precentral gyrus. Furthermore, the length discrimination task
activated fields in the overt part of the supramarginal gyrus bilatera
lly as well as fields in the angular gyrus bilaterally. Thus roughness
discrimination uses only a subset of the cortical regions that are ne
eded for the recovery of length information, which requires more exten
sive somatosensory processing. This finding may be partly explained in
that length perception needs both edge detection of the stimuli used,
as well as integrated information of surface length and velocity, whi
ch is not necessary for roughness perception. Specific differences in
the acquisition of necessary tactile information between the two discr
imination tasks was reflected in different sampling strategies.