Hypotheses for abstracts, Fall 2010 Human Physiology

Based on data in twopointdiscrimination2010.xls:

  1. For the back of the hand of college-age men, the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field is greater than the mediolateral dimension.
  2. For the back of the hand of college-age women, the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field is greater than the mediolateral dimension.
  3. For the calf of college-age men, the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field is greater than the mediolateral dimension.
  4. For the calf of college-age women, the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field is greater than the mediolateral dimension.
  5. For college-age women, the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the back of the hand is greater than the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the finger.
  6. For college-age men, the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the back of the hand is greater than the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the finger.
  7. For college-age women, the mediolateral dimension of a touch receptive field on the back of the hand is greater than the mediolateral dimension of a touch receptive field on the finger.
  8. For college-age men, the mediolateral dimension of a touch receptive field on the back of the hand is greater than the mediolateral dimension of a touch receptive field on the finger.
  9. For college-age men, the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the finger is less than the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the calf.
  10. For college-age women, the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the finger is less than the proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the calf.
  11. The proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the back of the hand is larger for college-age menthan college-age women.
  12. The proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the calf is larger for college-age menthan college-age women.
  13. The proximodistal dimension of a touch receptive field on the finger is larger for college-age menthan college-age women.
  14. The mediolateral dimension of a touch receptive field on the back of the hand is larger for college-age menthan college-age women.
  15. The mediolateral dimension of a touch receptive field on the calf is larger for college-age menthan college-age women.
  16. The mediolateral dimension of a touch receptive field on the finger is larger forcollege-age menthancollege-age women.
  17. The mediolateral dimension of a touch receptive field on the cheek is larger forcollege-age menthancollege-age women.

Based on data in TouchPainWarCold2010.xls

Note: Grid was 12 mm x 12 mm with each “box” 3 mm X 3 mm.

  1. College-age women have more sites sensitive to pain on the palm thancollege-age men.
  2. College-age women have more sites sensitive to touch on the palm thancollege-age men.
  3. College-age women have more sites sensitive to warm on the palm thancollege-age men.
  4. College-age women have more sites sensitive to cold on the palm thancollege-age men.
  5. College-age women have more sites sensitive to pain on the calf thancollege-age men.
  6. College-age women have more sites sensitive to touch on the calf thancollege-age men.
  7. College-age women have more sites sensitive to warm on the calf thancollege-age men.
  8. College-age women have more sites sensitive to cold on the calf thancollege-age men.
  9. College-age women have more sites sensitive to pain on the cheek thancollege-age men.
  10. College-age women have more sites sensitive to touch on the cheek thancollege-age men.
  11. College-age women have more sites sensitive to warm on the cheek thancollege-age men.
  12. College-age women have more sites sensitive to cold on the cheek thancollege-age men.
  13. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to touch on the palm.
  14. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to touch on the calf.
  15. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to touch on the cheek.
  16. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to cold on the palm.
  17. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to cold on the calf.
  18. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to cold on the cheek.
  19. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to warm on the palm.
  20. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to warm on the calf.
  21. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to warm on the cheek.
  22. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to cold than to warm on the palm.
  23. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to cold than to warm on the calf.
  24. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to cold than to warm on the cheek.
  25. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to touch than to warm on the palm.
  26. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to touch than to warm on the calf.
  27. Forcollege-age women, there are more sites sensitive to touch than to warm on the cheek.
  28. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to touch on the palm.
  29. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to touch on the calf.
  30. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to touch on the cheek.
  31. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to cold on the palm.
  32. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to cold on the calf.
  33. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to cold on the cheek.
  34. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to warm on the palm.
  35. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to warm on the calf.
  36. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to pain than to warm on the cheek.
  37. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to cold than to warm on the palm.
  38. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to cold than to warm on the calf.
  39. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to cold than to warm on the cheek.
  40. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to touch than to warm on the palm.
  41. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to touch than to warm on the calf.
  42. Forcollege-age men, there are more sites sensitive to touch than to warm on the cheek.

Based on data in localization2010.xls

  1. College-age women are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the hand thancollege-age men.
  2. College-age women are better able to localize a stimulus on the calf thancollege-age men.
  3. College-age women are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the hand than the calf.
  4. College-aged men are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the hand than the calf.
  5. By the third trial,college-age men are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the hand.
  6. By the third trial,college-age men are better able to localize a stimulus on the calf.
  7. By the third trial,college-age women are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the hand.
  8. By the third trial,college-age women are better able to localize a stimulus on the calf.
  9. On the first trial,college-age women are better thancollege-age men at localizing a stimulus to the calf.
  10. College-age women are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the hand when the pen is in the dominant hand.
  11. College-aged men are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the hand when the pen is in the dominant hand.
  12. College-age women and men are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the hand when the pen is in the dominant hand.
  13. College-age women are better able to localize a stimulus on the back of the calf when the pen is in the dominant hand.