3.3.1 Muscles, Tendons and Joints
Muscles are primarily elastic systems that develop a tensional force that depends on several factors among which are at their activation level and their mechanical state, often simplified to just a length. At rest, a muscle behaves passively, like a nonlinear spring that becomes stiffer at the end of its range. When activation is increased from rest to full activation, the active contribution to the passive behaviour is greatest at midrange. As a result, for a given activation level, a muscle looses tonus if it is too short or too long. A muscle that shortens at high speed produces very little tension, while a lengthening muscle gives a greater tension, like a one-way damper. It must be noted that the neuromuscular system takes several hundreds of milliseconds to modulate the activation. Therefore, beyond a few Hertz, the passive portion of the dynamics dominates. Skeletal muscles are in great majority organised in agonist–antagonist systems [
84]. These terms describe the fact that separate muscles or muscle groups accelerate or prevent movement by contracting and relaxing in alternation. It is nevertheless a normal occurrence that muscles groups are activated simultaneously, a behaviour termed co-contraction or co-activation. Co-contraction, which result in a set of muscle tensions reaching a quasi-equilibrium around one or more joints, enables new functions, such as stabilisation of unstable tasks [
8]. The behaviour of an articulation operating purely in an agonist or antagonist mode is nevertheless very different from that of the same articulation undergoing co-contraction.
A consequence of co-contraction which is relevant to our subject is to stiffen the entire biomechanical system. This can be made evident when grasping an object. Take for instance a ruler between the thumb and the index finger, grip it loosely and note the frequency of the pendulum oscillation. Tightening the grip results in a net increase of this frequency as a consequence of the stiffening of all the tissues involved, including the muscles that are co-contracting: a tighter grip resists better to a perturbation. This also means that the musculoskeletal system can modulate stiffness at a fixed position, for instance when grasping. This observation requires to consider any linear model of the musculoskeletal system with much circumspection.
We can now see how this system can contribute to the sensation of the weight of objects since in one of the strategies employed by people in the performance of this perceptual task is to aim at reaching a static equilibrium where velocity tends towards zero, a condition that must be detected by the central nervous system. For instance, when it comes to heaviness, it has been noticed many times that subjects tend also to adopt a second strategy where rapid oscillations are performed around a point of equilibrium. In the latter case, it is possible to suppose that it is the variation of effort as a function of movement and of its derivative that provides information about the mass (and not about the weight). Muscles are connected to the skeleton by tendons which also have mechanoreceptors called the Golgi organs. These respond to the stress to which they are subjected and report it to the central nervous system, which is thus informed of the effort applied by the muscles needed to reach a static or dynamic equilibrium.
The joints themselves include mechanoreceptors. They are located in the joint capsule, which is a type of sleeve made of a dense network of connective tissues wrapping around a joint and containing the synovial fluid. These receptors—the so-called Ruffini corpuscle—respond to the deformation of the capsule and appear to play a key role when the joint approaches the end of its useful range of movement, in which case some fibres of the capsule begin stretching [
28].
The sensory organs of the musculoskeletal system give us the opportunity to introduce a great categorisation within the fauna of mechanoreceptors, namely rapidly adapting (RA) and slowly adapting (SA) receptors. The distinction is made on a simple basis. When a RA receptor is stimulated by undergoing a deformation, it responds by a volley of action potentials for a duration and a density that is driven directly by the rate of change of the stimulus, just like a high-pass filter would (but direct analogies with linear filters should be avoided). When a SA-type receptor is deformed, it responds for the whole duration of the stimulus but is rather insensitive to the transient portion and in that resembles a low-pass filter including the zero frequency component.
This distinction is universal and is as valid for the receptors embedded in ligaments and capsules (SA) as for those located in muscles and in the skin (SA and RA). To pursue the analysis of the perception of object properties, such as shape, we can realise that the joints too are involved in this task, since any muscular output and any resulting skeletal movement have an effect on the joints in the form of extra loading, relative sliding of structures and connective tissue deformation. These observation illustrates the conceptual difficulties associated with the study of the haptic system, namely that it is practically impossible to associate a single stimulus to an anatomical classification of the sources of information.
3.3.2 Glabrous, Hairy and Mucosal Skin
The body surface is covered with skin. As mentioned above, it is crucial to distinguish three main types of skin having very different attributes and functions. The mucosal skin covers the ‘internal’ surfaces of the body and are in general humid. The gums and the tongue are capable of vitally important sensorimotor functions [
7,
39,
75]. The tongue’s capabilities are astonishing: it can detect a large number of objects’ attributes including their size, their shape, very small curvature radii, hardness and others. Briefly, one may speculate that the sensorimotor abilities of the tongue are sufficient to instantly detect any object likely to cause mechanical injury in case of ingestion (grains of sand, fish bones).
The glabrous skin has a rather thick superficial layer made of keratin (like hairs) which is not innervated. The epidermis, right under it, is living and has a special geometry such that the papillae of the epidermal–dermal junction are twice as frequent as the print ridges. The folds of the papillae house receptors called Meissner corpuscles, which are roughly as frequent in the direction transversal to the ridges as in the longitudinal direction. The Merkel complexes (which comprise a large number of projecting arborescent neurites) terminate on the apex of the papillae matching the corresponding ridge, called the papillary peg. The hairy skin does not have such a deeply sculptured organisation. In addition, each hair is associated with muscular and sensory fibres that innerve an organ called the hair follicle.
This geometry can be better appreciated if considered at several length scales and under different angles. A fingerprint shows that the effective contact area is much smaller than the touched surface. The distribution of receptors is highly related with the geometry of the fingerprint. In particular, the spatial frequency of the Meissner corpuscles is twice that of the ridges. On the other hand, the spatial frequency of the arborescent terminations of the Merkel complexes is the same as that of the ridges. This geometry explains why the density of Meissner corpuscles is roughly five times greater than that of the Merkel complexes [
37,
45,
55,
59]. Merkel complexes, however, come in two types. The other type forms long chains that run on the apex of the papillae [
60]. The distinctive tree-like structure of this organ terminates precisely at the dermal–epidermal interface.
It is useful to perform simple experiments to realise the differences in sensory capabilities between glabrous and hairy skin. It suffices to get hold of rough surfaces, such as a painted wall or even sand paper, and to compare the experience when touching it with the fingertip or with the back of the hand. Try also to get hold of a Braille text and to try to read it with the wrist. The types of receptors seem to be similar in both kinds of skin, but their distribution and the organisation and biomechanical properties of the respective skins vary enormously. One can guess that the receptor densities are greatest in the fingertips. There, we can have an idea of their density when considering that the distance between the ridges of the glabrous skin is 0.3–0.5 mm.
The largest receptor is the Pacini corpuscle. It is found in the deeper regions of the subcutaneous tissues (several mm) but also near the skin, and its density is moderate, approximately 300 in the whole hand [
11,
71]. It is large enough to be seen with the naked eye, and its distribution seems to be opportunistic and correlated with the presence of main nervous trunks rather than functional skin surfaces [
32]. Receptors of this type have been found in a great variety of tissues, including the mesentery, but near the skin they seem to have a very specific role, that of vibration detection. The Pacinian corpuscle allows to introduce a key notion in physiology, that of specificity or ‘tuning’. It is a common occurence in all sensory receptors (be it chemoreceptors, photoreceptors cells, thermoreceptors or mechanorectors) that they are tuned to respond to certain classes of stimuli. The Pacinian corpuscle does not escape this rule since it is specific to vibrations, maximising its sensitivity for a stimulation frequency of about 250 Hz but continuing with decreasing sensitivity to 1000 Hz. It is so sensitive that, under passive touch conditions, it can detect vibrations of 0.1 micrometer present at the skin surface [
78]. Even higher sensitivity was measured for active touch: results addressing a finger-pressing task are reported in Sect.
4.2.
The Meissner corpuscle, being found in great numbers in the glabrous skin, plays a fundamental role in touch. In the glabrous skin, it is tucked inside the ‘dermal papillae’, and thus in the superficial regions of the dermis, but nevertheless mechanically connected to the epidermis via a dense network of connective fibres. Therefore, it is the most intimate witness of the most minute skin deformations [
72]. One may have some insight into its size by considering that its ‘territory’ is often bounded by sweat pores [
55,
60].
Merkel complexes, in turn, rather than being sensitive axons tightly packed inside a capsule, have tree-like ramifications that terminate near discoidal cell, the so-called Merkel cells. In the hairy skin, these structures are associated with each hair. They also very present in mucoscal membranes. In the glabrous skin, they have up to 50 terminations for a single main axon [
30]. The physiology of Merkel cells is not well understood [
54]. They would participate in mechanotransduction together with the afferent terminals to provide these with a unique firing pattern. In any case, Merkel complexes are associated with slowly adaptive responses, but their functional significance is still obscure since some studies show that they can provide a Pacinian-type synchronised response up to 1500 Hz [
27].
The Ruffini corpuscle, which we already encountered while commenting on joint capsules, has the propensity to associate itself with connective tissues. Recently, it has been suggested that its role in skin-mediated touch is minor, if not inexistent, since glabrous skin seems to contain very few of them [
58]. This finding was indirectly supported by a recent study implicating the Ruffini corpuscle not in mechanical stimulation due to direct contact with the skin, but rather in the connective tissues around the nail [
5]. Generally speaking, the Ruffini corpuscle is very hard to identify and direct observations are rare, even in glabrous skin [
12,
31].
Finally the so-called C fibres, without any apparent structure, innervate not only the skin, but also all the organs in the body and are associated with pain, irritation and also tickling. These non-myelinated, slow fibres (about 1 m/s) are also implicated in conscious and unconscious touch [
76]. It is however doubtful that the information that they provide participates in the conscious perception of objects and surfaces (shape, size, or weight for instance). This properties invite the conclusion that the information of the slow fibres participates in affective touch and to the development of conscious self-awareness [
56].
From this brief description of the peripheral equipment, we can now consider the receptors that are susceptible to play a role in the perception of external mechanical loading. As far as the Ruffini corpuscles are concerned, several studies have shown that the joints, and hence the receptor located there, provide proprioceptive information, that is estimation of the mechanical state of the body (relative limb position, speed, loading). It is also possible that they are implicated in the perception of the deformation of deep tissues which occurs when manipulating a heavy object. It might be surprising, but the central nervous system becomes aware of limb movements not only by the musculoskeletal system and the joints, but also by the skin and subcutaneous tissues [
22].
It is clear that the receptors that innerve the muscles also have a contribution to make, since at the very least the nervous system must either control velocity to zero, or else estimate it during oscillatory movements. Muscles must transmit an effort able to oppose the effects of both gravity and acceleration in the inertial frame. Certainly, Golgi organs—which are located precisely on the load path—would provide information, but only if the load to be gauged is significantly larger than that of the moving limb. Lastly, the gauged object in contact with the hand would deform the skin. From this deformation, hundreds of mechanoreceptors would discharge, some transitorily when contact is made, some in a persisting fashion.
At this point, it should be clear that the experience of the properties of an object, such as its lack of mobility, is really a ‘perceptual outcome’ arising from complex processing in the nervous system and relying on many different cues, none of which alone would be sufficient to provide a direct and complete measurement about any particular property. This phenomenon is all the more remarkable, since, say a saxophone, seems to have the same weight when is held with the arms stretched out, squeezed between two hands, held by the handle with a dangling arm, held in two arms—among other possibilities—each of these configurations involving distinct muscle groups and providing the nervous system with completely different sets of cues!