Abstract:Donna L Kennedy, 1, 2 Imogen Pateman, 1 Andrew SC Rice, 3 Caroline M Alexander 1, 2 1 Therapy Department, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; 2 Human Performance Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; 3 Pain Research Group, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK Correspondence: Donna L Kennedy, Therapy Department, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, United Kingdom, Email Purpose: Quantitative sensory testing commonly utilizes the unaffected, contralateral side as a control to detect somatosensory dysfunction. There is scant evidence that somatosensory function for the volar dominant and non-dominant hands is equivalent, therefore intra-patient comparisons are unwarranted. This study aimed to identify dominance-related differences in palmar hand somatosensation, thereby determining if the unaffected contralateral hand is a valid comparator in clinical populations. Participants and Methods: With ethical approval (IREC_13_1_10) and informed consent, 110 healthy adult volunteers' participated in this clinical measurement study. Somatosensory function was assessed with the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS) quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol. Half of the participants were tested on the dominant hand. Thirteen parameters of thermal and mechanical detection and pain threshold were evaluated at both the dorsal and volar hand (distal middle finger). Tests were performed in the same order and instructions were read from a standardized script. Results for dorsal hand tests were compared to DFNS normative data to confirm participants met study inclusion criteria. Between-group differences for age and sex were investigated with the independent samples t -test and Chi-square test of independence, respectively. Group differences for dominant and non-dominant hands for all 13 continuous QST parameters were investigated with the Mann–Whitney U -test. Results: Data for 106 participants were included in statistical analysis. Fifty percent of participants were tested on the dominant hand [n=53]; there were no differences for age or sex between groups (dominant or non-dominant hand test group). The dominant volar hand was significantly more sensitive to vibration detection threshold than the non-dominant hand (P=0.001). There were no significant differences related to dominance for other DFNS QST measures. Conclusion: For quantitative sensory testing with the DFNS protocol in healthy cohorts, the contralateral, unaffected hand is a valid control, with the exception of vibration detection threshold. Keywords: thermoreception, mechanoreception, vibration, pain, evaluation Somatosensory function may be impaired by diverse pathophysiology. This includes a broad range of peripheral neuropathies (disturbance of function or pathological change in a peripheral nerve 1 ), including traumatic nerve lesion, nerve compression or secondary to clinical conditions such as diabetic neuropathy. Additionally, peripheral and central sensitization may result in somatosensory dysfunction. 2 Robust sensory evaluation can aid in ascertaining the level or severity of a nerve lesion, improvement or deterioration of sensory function over time and supports differential diagnosis of the underlying causative condition. Somatosensory function refers to the ability to interpret bodily sensations, including touch, pressure, vibration, temperature and nociception. At the periphery, cutaneous mechanoreceptors, nociceptors and thermoreceptors differ in the stimulus or modality they encode, their structure and their location in the skin, thereby generating a vast array of precise information that subserves function (Table 1). For clarity, nociception refers to the neural process of encoding noxious stimuli and does not necessarily imply that a sensation is painful. 3 Pain, in contrast, is defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage; 4 the distinction between the phenomena is an important one. Table 1 Classification of Somatosensory Receptors Clinicians have long sought to evaluate, or quantify, somatosensory function in clinical cohorts. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) describes the measurement of sensory loss and sensory gain (allodynia; hyperalgesia) in response to graded multi-modal stimuli. Sensory testing is considered "quantitative" where the intensity of the stimulus and/or the participants' response, is measurable. 5 QST is a psychophysica -Abstract Truncated-

Do we perceive sensations inside and outside of our body differently? Perceptual, emotional, and behavioral differences between visceral and somatic sensation, discomfort, and pain

Do Tonic Itch and Pain Stimuli Draw Attention towards Their Location?

Effect of slow, deep breathing on visceral pain perception and its underlying psychophysiological mechanisms

Tempo-spatial discrimination is lower for noxious stimuli than for innocuous stimuli

Differences in Somatosensory Function Related to Hand Dominance: Results of a Quantitative Sensory Testing Study in Healthy Volunteers

Temporal and qualitative properties of cold pain and heat pain: a psychophysical study

Continuum of somatosensory profiles in breast cancer survivors with and without pain, compared to healthy controls and patients with fibromyalgia

Physiological Processing of Aversiveness in the Mind’s Ear: Comparing Audiovisual, Auditory and Imagined Auditory Affective Stimuli

Affective and Physiological Responses During Acute Pain in Virtual Reality: The Effect of First-Person Versus Third-Person Perspective

The Effect of Observing High or Low Pain on the Development of Central Sensitization

Why Self-Induced Pain Feels Less Painful than Externally Generated Pain: Distinct Brain Activation Patterns in Self- and Externally Generated Pain

Differential activation of lateral parabrachial nuclei and their limbic projections during head compared with body pain: A 7-Tesla functional magnetic resonance imaging study

The Effect of Electrical Stimulation–Induced Pain on Time Perception and Relationships to Pain-Related Emotional and Cognitive Factors: A Temporal Bisection Task and Questionnaire–Based Study

Pain tolerance and the thresholds of human sensory and motor axons to single and repetitive bursts of kilohertz‐frequency stimulation

Central and peripheral hypersensitivity in the irritable bowel syndrome

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Intractable Visceral Pain Originating from the Pelvic and Abdominal Region: A Narrative Review on a Possible New Indication for Patients with Therapy-Resistant Pain

Interactive and passive mixed reality distraction: effects on cold pressor pain in adults

Modulation of the Somatosensory Evoked Potential by Attention and Spinal Cord Stimulation

Soreness Reminds Me of Grief: Patients with Chronic Pain Show Less Differentiated Representations of Emotional Feelings and Bodily States

Different Patterns of Attention Modulation in Early N140 and Late P300 sERPs Following Ipsilateral vs. Contralateral Stimulation at the Fingers and Cheeks

An improved conflict avoidance assay reveals modality-specific differences in pain hypersensitivity across sexes