Display options
Cite
Strzalkowski ND, Triano JJ, Lam CK, et al. Thresholds of skin sensitivity are partially influenced by mechanical properties of the skin on the foot sole. Physiol Rep. 2015;3(6)doi: 10.14814/phy2.12425.
Strzalkowski, N. D., Triano, J. J., Lam, C. K., Templeton, C. A., & Bent, L. R. (2015). Thresholds of skin sensitivity are partially influenced by mechanical properties of the skin on the foot sole. Physiological reports, 3(6), . https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.12425
Strzalkowski, Nicholas D J, et al. "Thresholds of skin sensitivity are partially influenced by mechanical properties of the skin on the foot sole." Physiological reports vol. 3,6 (2015). doi: https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.12425
Strzalkowski ND, Triano JJ, Lam CK, Templeton CA, Bent LR. Thresholds of skin sensitivity are partially influenced by mechanical properties of the skin on the foot sole. Physiol Rep. 2015 Jun;3(6). doi: 10.14814/phy2.12425. PMID: 26059035; PMCID: PMC4510627.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Physiol Rep. 2015 Jun;3(6). doi: 10.14814/phy2.12425.

Thresholds of skin sensitivity are partially influenced by mechanical properties of the skin on the foot sole.

Physiological reports

Nicholas D J Strzalkowski, John J Triano, Chris K Lam, Cale A Templeton, Leah R Bent

Affiliations

  1. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
  2. Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  3. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada [email protected].

PMID: 26059035 PMCID: PMC4510627 DOI: 10.14814/phy2.12425

Abstract

Across the foot sole, there are vibration and monofilament sensory differences despite an alleged even distribution of cutaneous afferents. Mechanical property differences across foot sole sites have been proposed to account for these differences. Vibration (VPT; 3 Hz, 40 Hz, 250 Hz), and monofilament (MF) perception threshold measurements were compared with skin hardness, epidermal thickness, and stretch response across five foot sole locations in young healthy adults (n = 22). Perceptual thresholds were expected to correlate with all mechanical property measurements to help address sensitivity differences between sites. Following this hypothesis, the MedArch was consistently found to be the thinnest and softest site and demonstrated the greatest sensitivity. Conversely, the Heel was found to be the thickest and hardest site, and was relatively insensitive across perceptual tests. Site differences were not observed for epidermal stretch response measures. Despite an apparent trend of elevated sensory threshold at harder and thicker sites, significant correlations between sensitivity measures and skin mechanical properties were not observed. Skin hardness and epidermal thickness appeared to have a negligible influence on VPT and minor influence on MF within this young healthy population. When normalized (% greater or smaller than subject mean) to the subject mean for each variable, significant positive correlations were observed between MF and skin hardness (R(2) = 0.422, P < 0.0001) and epidermal thickness (R(2) = 0.433, P < 0.0001) providing evidence that skin mechanics can influence MF threshold. In young healthy adults, differences in sensitivity are present across the foot sole, but cannot solely be accounted for by differences in the mechanical properties of the skin.

© 2015 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Physiological Society and The Physiological Society.

Keywords: Epidermis; foot sole; mechanical properties; monofilament; vibration

References

  1. J Physiol. 1979 Dec;297(0):405-22 - PubMed
  2. J Biomech. 2006;39(13):2445-56 - PubMed
  3. Skin Res Technol. 2008 Aug;14(3):298-303 - PubMed
  4. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001 Aug;11(4):455-61 - PubMed
  5. Brain Res. 2001 Sep 14;913(1):27-34 - PubMed
  6. J Invest Dermatol. 2003 Feb;120(2):275-84 - PubMed
  7. Brain Res. 1982 Jul 22;244(1):17-25 - PubMed
  8. BMC Neurosci. 2013 Oct 08;14:116 - PubMed
  9. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Sep 19;12 :203 - PubMed
  10. Med Hypotheses. 2003 Jul;61(1):29-35 - PubMed
  11. Somatosens Mot Res. 2005 Mar-Jun;22(1-2):57-68 - PubMed
  12. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998 Oct;24(8):1183-99 - PubMed
  13. Hum Neurobiol. 1984;3(1):3-14 - PubMed
  14. Exp Brain Res. 1989;78(2):419-24 - PubMed
  15. J Neurophysiol. 2005 Dec;94(6):3795-804 - PubMed
  16. Foot Ankle Int. 2005 Oct;26(10):847-53 - PubMed
  17. Ann Neurol. 2006 Jan;59(1):4-12 - PubMed
  18. J Physiol. 1990 Oct;429:113-29 - PubMed
  19. Somatosens Mot Res. 1999;16(3):197-206 - PubMed
  20. Neurosci Lett. 2010 Nov 12;485(1):6-10 - PubMed
  21. Neurosci Lett. 2006 Jan 9;392(1-2):62-7 - PubMed
  22. Ultrason Imaging. 1991 Apr;13(2):111-34 - PubMed
  23. Neurology. 1993 Aug;43(8):1508-12 - PubMed
  24. J Ultrasound Med. 2012 Jan;31(1):97-111 - PubMed
  25. Neuroreport. 2002 Oct 28;13(15):1957-61 - PubMed
  26. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2003 Sep;2(3):132-9 - PubMed
  27. Brain Res. 1984 May 28;301(1):65-72 - PubMed
  28. Gait Posture. 2009 Oct;30(3):383-7 - PubMed
  29. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988 Nov;84(5):1680-94 - PubMed
  30. Brain Res. 2000 Sep 22;877(2):401-6 - PubMed
  31. Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Aug 15;55(4):603-9 - PubMed
  32. Foot Ankle Int. 1996 Oct;17(10):629-34 - PubMed
  33. Exp Brain Res. 2004 Aug;157(4):526-36 - PubMed
  34. Brain Res. 1980 Feb 24;184(2):353-66 - PubMed
  35. J Physiol. 2002 Feb 1;538(Pt 3):995-1002 - PubMed
  36. J Biomed Eng. 1991 Jan;13(1):39-42 - PubMed
  37. J Int Med Res. 2004 Mar-Apr;32(2):222-31 - PubMed
  38. J Physiol. 1979 Jan;286:283-300 - PubMed
  39. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001 Nov;16(9):719-27 - PubMed
  40. J Neurophysiol. 2005 Sep;94(3):1699-706 - PubMed
  41. J Nurs Meas. 2009;17(1):3-18 - PubMed
  42. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Jun;63(6):595-602 - PubMed
  43. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2006 May 04;3:9 - PubMed
  44. J Neurophysiol. 2013 Feb;109(3):839-50 - PubMed
  45. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1999 Nov;14(9):667-72 - PubMed
  46. Br J Dermatol. 2010 Sep;163(3):495-501 - PubMed
  47. Neurosci Lett. 1999 May 14;266(3):181-4 - PubMed
  48. Somatosens Mot Res. 2013;30(1):16-29 - PubMed
  49. J Physiol. 2007 Apr 15;580(Pt. 2):649-58 - PubMed
  50. Med Eng Phys. 2013 Aug;35(8):1221-7 - PubMed
  51. J Biomech. 2002 Oct;35(10):1307-13 - PubMed
  52. Lancet. 2003 Oct 4;362(9390):1123-4 - PubMed
  53. J Physiol. 1983 Sep;342:633-54 - PubMed
  54. Foot Ankle Int. 2009 Oct;30(10):986-91 - PubMed

Publication Types