2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2016.02.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ageing and obesity indices influences the tactile acuity of the low back regions: A cross-sectional study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
2
16
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For each participant, the tactile acuity threshold (i.e., the minimal distance at which two tactile stimuli can be perceived separately; Cornsweet, 1962; Ehrenstein & Ehrenstein, 1999) was computed as the average of the distance between the calliper tips across the last six reversals (Falling & Mani, 2016). The independent samples t -test performed on normally distributed data (Shapiro–Wilk test: healthy weight p = .77; obesity p = .24) revealed that the tactile acuity threshold was not significantly different, t (32) = –0.98, two-tailed p = .33, d = 0.34, 95% CI = [–0.34, 1.02], between healthy weight participants, M ( SD ) = 14.99 mm (5.07), and participants with obesity, M ( SD ) = 16.82 mm (5.62) (Figure 2, right panel).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…For each participant, the tactile acuity threshold (i.e., the minimal distance at which two tactile stimuli can be perceived separately; Cornsweet, 1962; Ehrenstein & Ehrenstein, 1999) was computed as the average of the distance between the calliper tips across the last six reversals (Falling & Mani, 2016). The independent samples t -test performed on normally distributed data (Shapiro–Wilk test: healthy weight p = .77; obesity p = .24) revealed that the tactile acuity threshold was not significantly different, t (32) = –0.98, two-tailed p = .33, d = 0.34, 95% CI = [–0.34, 1.02], between healthy weight participants, M ( SD ) = 14.99 mm (5.07), and participants with obesity, M ( SD ) = 16.82 mm (5.62) (Figure 2, right panel).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lately, an association between tactile acuity per se and biases in more explicit body size estimation tasks has been reported (Linkenauger et al, 2015; Proske & Gandevia, 2012; Sadibolova et al, 2019), including a task (Peviani et al, 2019) that is supposed to investigate a body representation qualitatively similar but less distorted than the body model (Longo & Haggard, 2012b). Thus, considering the lower tactile acuity threshold reported in obesity than in healthy weight participants (Boles & Givens, 2011; Bussolaro et al, 2012; Falling & Mani, 2016), we probed the possible interplay between tactile acuity and body model distortions. Here, we reported no difference in tactile acuity between the two groups, neither we found a significant relationship with the BMI, in contrast with previous observations of a higher tactile acuity threshold in obesity (Boles & Givens, 2011; Bussolaro et al, 2012; Falling & Mani, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Following this, linear mixed regression models were fitted to the data to evaluate the effect of the independent variables on disability and pain over time. Age was included as a potential confounding variable based on its association with the TPDT (29). Timepoints (T2 and T3) were entered as fixed effects and subjects as random effects (intercepts).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%