Premium
Comparison of perception threshold testing and thermal‐vibratory testing
Author(s) -
Lowenstein Lior,
Jesse Kathy,
Kenton Kimberly
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
muscle and nerve
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.025
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1097-4598
pISSN - 0148-639X
DOI - 10.1002/mus.20934
Subject(s) - quantitative sensory testing , medicine , sensory threshold , reliability (semiconductor) , audiology , afferent , sensory system , psychology , neuroscience , physics , power (physics) , quantum mechanics , cognitive science
Current perception threshold testing (CPT) is thought to selectively activate and measure three types of afferent nerves. However, it has not been standardized or compared with better‐studied methods of sensory testing. Our objectives were to determine the relationship between CPT (2000 Hz, 250 Hz, 5 Hz) and quantitative sensory testing (QST) using vibratory and heat thresholds, and to assess the test–retest reliability of both methods. Twenty‐seven healthy women were enrolled. Each woman underwent CPT and QST on the volar part of the arm. Sensory thresholds were determined by the method of limits; 20 women underwent repeated CPT testing and QST after 1 week to determine test–retest reliability. Thermal thresholds were moderately correlated with CPT at 5 Hz (ρ = 0.49, P = 0.009), as were vibratory thresholds and CPT at 2000 Hz (ρ = 0.5, P = 0.008). In contrast to CPT measurements, warm and vibratory and cold thresholds were correlated 1 week apart (ρ = 0.73, P = 0.0001; ρ = 0.83, P = 0.0001; and ρ = 0.47, P = 0.0037, respectively). CPT testing and QST seem to be measuring similar afferent nerve‐fiber populations, but QST has better test–retest reliability than CPT testing, justifying its role in clinical or research studies. Muscle Nerve, 2007