Recovery Time of Electrical Sensory, Motor, and Pain Thresholds: A Pilot Study Towards Standardization of Quantitative Sensory Testing in Healthy Population

Ríos-Asín, Izarbe (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Malo-Urriés, Miguel (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Pérez-Rey, Jorge (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; García-Díez, Marta (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Burgos-Garlito, Lucía ; Bueno-Gracia, Elena (Universidad de Zaragoza)

Resumen: Background/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.

Idioma: Inglés

DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13192492

Año: 2025

Publicado en: Healthcare (Switzerland) 13, 19 (2025), 2492 [11 pp.]
ISSN: 2227-9032

Tipo y forma: Artículo (Versión definitiva)

Área (Departamento): Area Anatom.Embriol.Humana (Dpto. Anatom.Histolog.Humanas)
Área (Departamento): Área Fisioterapia (Dpto. Fisiatría y Enfermería)
Área (Departamento): Área Mecánica de Fluidos (Dpto. Ciencia Tecnol.Mater.Fl.)