Perceived Intensity and Discrimination Ability for Lingual Electrotactile Stimulation Depends on Location and Orientation of Electrodes

Malfunctioning sensory systems can severely impact quality of life and repair is not always possible. One solution, called sensory substitution, is to use another sensory system to bring lost information to the brain. This approach often involves the use of bioengineered devices that electrically stimulate somatosensory fibers. Interestingly, the tongue is an ideal location for electrotactile stimulation due to its dense innervation, moisture, and protected environment. Success with transmitting visual and vestibular information through the tongue indicates promise for future applications. However, sensitivity and discrimination ability varies between individuals and across the tongue surface complicating efforts to produce reliable and consistent sensations. The goals of the present study were to investigate these differences more precisely to better understand the mechanosensory innervation of the tongue so that future electrotactile devices can be designed more effectively. Specifically, we tested whether stimulation of certain regions of the tongue consistently result in better perception, whether the spacing of stimulating electrodes affects perceived intensity, and whether the orientation of electrodes affects perceived intensity and discrimination. To test these hypotheses, we built a custom tongue stimulation device, recruited 25 participants, and collected perceived intensity and discrimination data. We then subjected the data to thorough statistical analyses. Consistent with previous studies, we found that stimulation of the anterior medial tongue region was perceived as more intense than stimulation of lateral and posterior regions. This region also had the best discrimination ability for electrodes. Dividing the stimulated tongue area into 16 distinct regions allowed us to compare perception ability between anterior and posterior regions, medial and lateral regions, and the left and right sides of the tongue. Stimulation of the most anterior and medial tongue resulted in the highest perceived intensity and the best discrimination ability. Most individuals were able to perceive and discriminate electrotactile stimulation better on one side of the tongue, and orientation of stimulating electrodes affected perception. In conclusion, the present studies reveal new information about the somatosensory innervation of the tongue and will assist the design of future electrotactile tongue stimulation devices that will help provide sensory information to people with damaged sensory systems.

[1]  P. Bach-y-Rita,et al.  Sensory substitution and the human–machine interface , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  K A Kaczmarek,et al.  The tongue display unit (TDU) for electrotactile spatiotemporal pattern presentation , 2011, Sci. Iran..

[3]  D K Oller,et al.  Speech perception by congenitally deaf subjects using an electrocutaneous vocoder. , 1988, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[4]  G. Clark,et al.  Use of a multichannel electrotactile speech processor by profoundly hearing-impaired children in a total communication environment. , 1991, Journal of american academy of audiology.

[5]  N. Vuillerme,et al.  Effectiveness of a tongue-placed electrotactile biofeedback to improve ankle force sense following plantar-flexor muscles fatigue. , 2009, Gait & posture.

[6]  J. Moritz Evaluation of electrical tongue stimulation for communication of audio information to the brain , 2016 .

[7]  B. Sessle,et al.  Face sensorimotor cortex and its neuroplasticity related to orofacial sensorimotor functions. , 2011, Archives of oral biology.

[8]  M. Tyler,et al.  Brainport: an alternative input to the brain. , 2005, Journal of integrative neuroscience.

[9]  P. Bach-y-Rita,et al.  Form perception with a 49-point electrotactile stimulus array on the tongue: a technical note. , 1998, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[10]  M. Tyler,et al.  Spatial mapping of electrotactile sensation threshold and intensity range on the human tongue: Initial results , 2009, 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[11]  K H Plattig,et al.  Minimal two-point discrimination in human tongue and palate. , 1989, American journal of otolaryngology.

[12]  I. Sanders,et al.  Human tongue neuroanatomy: Nerve supply and motor endplates , 2010, Clinical anatomy.

[13]  T. Kurabayashi,et al.  Preferred chewing side-dependent two-point discrimination and cortical activation pattern of tactile tongue sensation , 2009, Behavioural Brain Research.

[14]  R. Diehl,et al.  Speech Perception , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[15]  D. Oller,et al.  Multisensory narrative tracking by a profoundly deaf subject using an electrocutaneous vocoder and a vibrotactile aid. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[16]  G. Essick,et al.  Sensations evoked by microstimulation of single mechanoreceptive afferents innervating the human face and mouth. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  Mary E. Meyerand,et al.  Altered Connectivity of the Balance Processing Network After Tongue Stimulation in Balance-Impaired Individuals , 2013, Brain Connect..

[18]  Thomas D. Wright,et al.  Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Sensory Substitution as an Artificially Acquired Synaesthesia , 2022 .

[19]  BENJAMIN WHITE,et al.  Vision Substitution by Tactile Image Projection , 1969, Nature.

[20]  Paul Bach-Y-Rita,et al.  Closing an open-loop control system: vestibular substitution through the tongue. , 2003, Journal of integrative neuroscience.

[21]  K. A. Kaczmarek Effect of Electrode Geometry and Intensity Control Method on Comfort of Electrotactile Stimulation on the Tongue , 2000, Dynamic Systems and Control: Volume 2.

[22]  David M. Eagleman,et al.  Using space and time to encode vibrotactile information: toward an estimate of the skin’s achievable throughput , 2015, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  Marco Santello,et al.  Electrotactile stimulation on the tongue: Intensity perception, discrimination, and cross-modality estimation , 2009, Somatosensory & motor research.

[24]  P. Haggard,et al.  Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews , 2022 .

[25]  G. McCall,et al.  Two-Point Discrimination: Asymmetry in Spatial Discrimination on the Two Sides of the Tongue, a Preliminary Report , 1971, Perceptual and motor skills.

[26]  J. Martinez‐Gomis,et al.  Relationship between chewing side preference and handedness and lateral asymmetry of peripheral factors. , 2009, Archives of oral biology.

[27]  D. Oller,et al.  Multisensory speech perception by profoundly hearing-impaired children. , 1989, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[28]  P. Marasco,et al.  Plasticity of the cortical dentition representation after tooth extraction in naked mole‐rats , 2005, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[29]  P. Bach-y-Rita Tactile Sensory Substitution Studies , 2004, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Abdessalem Chekhchoukh,et al.  Influence of Sparkle and Saccades on Tongue Electro-Stimulation-Based Vision Substitution of 2D Vectors , 2012, Acta biotheoretica.

[31]  G. Essick,et al.  Low-threshold mechanoreceptive afferents in the human lingual nerve. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[32]  Roseli Saraiva Moreira Bittar,et al.  Effects of electrotactile vestibular substitution on rehabilitation of patients with bilateral vestibular loss , 2010, Neuroscience Letters.

[33]  C. Schwahn,et al.  Self-reported chewing side preference and its associations with occlusal, temporomandibular and prosthodontic factors: results from the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP-0). , 2008, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[34]  J F Deem,et al.  Oral Two-Point Discrimination: Further Evidence of Asymmetry on Right and Left Sides of Selected Oral Structures , 1972, Perceptual and motor skills.

[35]  Shachar Maidenbaum,et al.  Author's Personal Copy Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Sensory Substitution: Closing the Gap between Basic Research and Widespread Practical Visual Rehabilitation Author's Personal Copy , 2022 .

[36]  F Bosman,et al.  Relationship between Oral Sensitivity and Masticatory Performance , 2004, Journal of dental research.

[37]  Justin Williams,et al.  Lingual electrotactile stimulation as an alternative sensory feedback pathway for brain–computer interface applications , 2012, Journal of neural engineering.