Tactile detection and two-point discrimination tests are commonly used in neurological examinations. However, questions remain about the influence of both body and patient characteristics on test thresholds. The left side of the body has sometimes been reported more tactilely sensitive than the right, and females are said to be more sensitive than males. We measured tactile detection and two-point discrimination thresholds on the finger, palm, and forehead of a large sample of young adults (N=171), examining laterality and sex differences, and the effects of body surface area (BSA) and body fat ratio (BFR). In tactile detection, there were no effects of laterality, BSA, or BFR, although females had lower thresholds than males. In two-point discrimination, there was an effect of laterality, with lower thresholds on the left side. This probably reflects hemispheric spatial processing differences. A significant BFR effect implies that subcutaneous fat affects skin deformation, but there were no effects of sex or BSA. The two-point discrimination findings differ in several respects from recent findings using grating orientation discriminations. A small positive correlation between the tasks, falling far short of test-retest reliabilities, indicates that they use largely disjoint but partially overlapping processes.

In two studies, we found that dot enumeration tasks resulted in shallow-sloped response time (RT) functions for displays of 1-4 dots and steep-sloped functions for displays of 5-8 dots, replicating results implicating subitizing and counting processes for low and high ranges of dots, respectively. Extracting number from a specific type of bar graph within the same numerical range produced a shallow-sloped but scallop-shaped RT function. Factor analysis confirmed two independent subranges for dots, but all bar graph values defined a unitary factor. Significantly, factor scores and asymmetries both showed correlations of bar graph recognition to dot subitizing but not to dot counting, strongly suggesting that subitizing was used in both enumeration of low numbers of dots and bar graph recognition. According to these results, subitizing appears to be a nonverbal process operating flexibly in either additive or subtractive fashion on analog quantities having spatial extent, a conclusion consistent with a fast-counting model of subitizing but not with other models of the subitizing process.

No abstract