Cortical activations induced by electrical versus vibrotactile finger stimulation using EEG

Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) recorded with electroencephalography offer insights into cortical responses to tactile stimulation, typically elicited through temporally precise electrical stimulation. Although vibrotactile stimulation is more ecologically valid but less common, studies directly comparing EEG responses to both electrical and vibrotactile finger stimulation are limited. This study examines and compares (a) cortical responses, (b) connectivity patterns, and (c) somatotopic accuracy of these stimulation types on the fingers. In two experiments, SEPs were recorded from healthy participants' right-hand finger stimulation, using either electrical (experiment 1, n = 22) or vibrotactile (experiment 2, n = 22) stimulation. Vibrotactile stimuli were delivered at 10, 50, and 250 Hz, targeting different ranges of tactile mechanoreceptors activations. Electrical stimulation reliability was assessed across two days, showing consistent SEP amplitudes and latencies. Both stimulation types generated three early components (P1, N1, P2), but all vibrotactile components were increasingly delayed compared to electrical stimulation. Vibrotactile stimulation exhibited stronger localized connectivity in early components (P1, N1) in the left hemisphere, while electrical stimulation showed broader connectivity at P2. Electrical stimulation provided a clearer somatotopic organization in the postcentral gyrus than vibrotactile stimulation. These findings suggest distinct processing for electrical versus vibrotactile finger stimulation. These two stimulation methods are not interchangeable in somatosensory studies: the temporal shift in vibrotactile responses reflects selective activation of Pacinian corpuscles, whereas electrical stimulation yields stronger generalized cortical processing. Electrical stimulation may engage a serial processing pathway starting in the primary somatosensory cortex, while vibrotactile stimulation could involve parallel processing in both primary and secondary somatosensory cortices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
NeuroImage
Published
2025-05-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121249
Citations
5
Primary Topic
EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.16

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cortical activations induced by electrical versus vibrotactile finger stimulation using EEG

Påvel G. Lindberg, Céline Ramdani, Lucile Dupin, Martine Gavaret et al.
5 citations
NeuroImage
EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
7.16
article

Cortical activations induced by electrical versus vibrotactile finger stimulation using EEG

Påvel G. Lindberg, Céline Ramdani, Lucile Dupin, Martine Gavaret, Anaëlle Alouit
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) recorded with electroencephalography offer insights into cortical responses to tactile stimulation, typically elicited through temporally precise electrical stimulation. Although vibrotactile stimulation is more ecologically valid but less common, studies directly comparing EEG responses to both electrical and vibrotactile finger stimulation are limited. This study examines and compares (a) cortical responses, (b) connectivity patterns, and (c) somatotopic accuracy of these stimulation types on the fingers. In two experiments, SEPs were recorded from healthy participants' right-hand finger stimulation, using either electrical (experiment 1, n = 22) or vibrotactile (experiment 2, n = 22) stimulation. Vibrotactile stimuli were delivered at 10, 50, and 250 Hz, targeting different ranges of tactile mechanoreceptors activations. Electrical stimulation reliability was assessed across two days, showing consistent SEP amplitudes and latencies. Both stimulation types generated three early components (P1, N1, P2), but all vibrotactile components were increasingly delayed compared to electrical stimulation. Vibrotactile stimulation exhibited stronger localized connectivity in early components (P1, N1) in the left hemisphere, while electrical stimulation showed broader connectivity at P2. Electrical stimulation provided a clearer somatotopic organization in the postcentral gyrus than vibrotactile stimulation. These findings suggest distinct processing for electrical versus vibrotactile finger stimulation. These two stimulation methods are not interchangeable in somatosensory studies: the temporal shift in vibrotactile responses reflects selective activation of Pacinian corpuscles, whereas electrical stimulation yields stronger generalized cortical processing. Electrical stimulation may engage a serial processing pathway starting in the primary somatosensory cortex, while vibrotactile stimulation could involve parallel processing in both primary and secondary somatosensory cortices.

NeuroImageVol. 314
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Inserm (FR), Université Paris Cité (FR), Sorbonne Paris Cité (FR), Institut de Médecine Tropicale du Service de Santé des Armées (FR), Institut de Psychiatrie et Neurosciences de Paris (FR), FHU Neurovasc (FR)
Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
7.16
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.