000163717 001__ 163717
000163717 005__ 20251030150826.0
000163717 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.3390/healthcare13192492
000163717 0248_ $$2sideral$$a145787
000163717 037__ $$aART-2025-145787
000163717 041__ $$aeng
000163717 100__ $$aRíos-Asín, Izarbe$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000163717 245__ $$aRecovery Time of Electrical Sensory, Motor, and Pain Thresholds: A Pilot Study Towards Standardization of Quantitative Sensory Testing in Healthy Population
000163717 260__ $$c2025
000163717 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000163717 5203_ $$aBackground/Objectives: Electrical threshold testing (ETT) offers a promising method for assessing somatosensory function. Despite its growing use, fundamental aspects such as the physiological recovery time required between repeated threshold measurements remain poorly understood. This gap is critical when evaluating sensory, motor, or pain thresholds (EST, EMT, EPT) in pre–post designs or rapid intra-session protocols. The aim is to investigate the short-term recovery dynamics of electrical thresholds following electrical threshold testing, and to determine the minimum interval required for values to return to a stable baseline. Methods: In this pilot, repeated-measures study, 10 healthy adults (20 upper limbs) underwent three progressive stimulation trials (sensory, motor, and pain). Electrical thresholds were assessed at fixed recovery intervals (0–120 s), with duplicate measurements at each time point. Stability was defined as the absence of significant differences between repeated measures. Results: EST stabilized rapidly after sensory or motor stimulation, showing no significant differences beyond 0 and 15 s, respectively. Within pain stimulation, EST recovered at 60 s. EMT showed immediate recovery with motor stimulation and required longer recovery with pain stimulation, with stabilization observed at 90 s. EPT exhibited the highest variability, with the smallest time-dependent differences observed immediately after the first assessment. Conclusion: Recovery time after electrical stimulation varies by threshold type and intensity of the stimuli. EST and EMT can be reliably reassessed immediately after sensory and motor stimulation, respectively. However, when stimulation reaches EPT level, EST requires 60 s to recover and EMT needs 90 s. EPT demonstrates higher variability, indicating the need for further investigation. These findings support the implementation of standardized recovery intervals in ETT and underscore the importance of interpreting EPT results with caution during rapid assessments.
000163717 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby$$uhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
000163717 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
000163717 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0001-9080-0543$$aMalo-Urriés, Miguel$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000163717 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0001-5842-6010$$aPérez-Rey, Jorge$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000163717 700__ $$aGarcía-Díez, Marta$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000163717 700__ $$aBurgos-Garlito, Lucía
000163717 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-0026-9224$$aBueno-Gracia, Elena$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000163717 7102_ $$11003$$2027$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Anatom.Histolog.Humanas$$cArea Anatom.Embriol.Humana
000163717 7102_ $$11006$$2413$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Fisiatría y Enfermería$$cÁrea Fisioterapia
000163717 7102_ $$15001$$2600$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Ciencia Tecnol.Mater.Fl.$$cÁrea Mecánica de Fluidos
000163717 773__ $$g13, 19 (2025), 2492 [11 pp.]$$pHealthcare (Basel)$$tHealthcare (Switzerland)$$x2227-9032
000163717 8564_ $$s675432$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/163717/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada
000163717 8564_ $$s2594225$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/163717/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada
000163717 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:163717$$particulos$$pdriver
000163717 951__ $$a2025-10-30-14:39:35
000163717 980__ $$aARTICLE