Deakin University
Browse

File(s) under permanent embargo

Tactile acuity testing at the neck: a comparison of methods

journal contribution
posted on 2017-12-01, 00:00 authored by Daniel S Harvie, Joan Kelly, Hayden Buckman, Jonathan Chan, Grace Sutherland, Mark Catley, James Novak, Neil Tuttle, Michele Sterling
BACKGROUND: Interest in measurement of tactile acuity in musculoskeletal practice has emerged following its link to functional reorganization of the somatosensory cortex in ongoing pain states. Several tactile acuity measurement methods have been described but have not been thoroughly investigated in the cervical region. OBJECTIVE: This study examined reliability, concurrent validity and responsiveness of four tests of tactile acuity-Two-point discrimination, Point-to-point, Graphesthesia, and Localisation tests-at the cervical region. METHOD: Forty-two healthy participants were included. In Part 1 (n = 22), participants' tactile acuity was assessed at two time points, 30 min apart, to determine the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of each of the tests. In Part 2 (n = 20), participants received five daily tactile training sessions, delivered via a vibro-tactile device. Tactile acuity was assessed pre- and post-training to examine responsiveness of each test. RESULTS: Two-point discrimination demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.85, SEM = 3.7 mm), Point-to-point and Localisation tests demonstrated good reliability (ICC = 0.60, SEM = 2.8 mm; ICC = 0.60, SEM = 8.8%), and Graphesthesia demonstrated fair reliability (ICC = 0.48, SEM = 1.9/20). There was no significant correlation among measures. Only Graphesthesia failed to show responsiveness to change following training. CONCLUSION: The reliability of Two-point discrimination appears superior to other examined tests of tactile acuity, however measurement variability should be considered. Two-point discrimination, Point-to-point, and Localisation tests appear responsive to change, although testing in clinical samples is needed. The lack of concurrent validity among tests suggests that they cannot be used interchangeably.

History

Journal

Musculoskeletal science and practice

Volume

32

Pagination

23-30

Location

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

ISSN

2468-8630

eISSN

2468-7812

Language

eng

Publication classification

C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal

Copyright notice

2017, Elsevier

Publisher

Elsevier

Usage metrics

    Research Publications

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC