Extended Data Fig. 6: Thermal reaction and perception in participants with limb amputation.
a, Thermal detection experiment at 23 °C for participant A1. Statistical comparisons were not performed because only one trial was detected for the bulk device at each stimulation site. b, Participant A4 also performed the thermal detection experiment with the bulkHC device and reported sensations of warming on some trials despite the target temperature being set to 16 °C (Supplementary Discussion). Data presented as performance per block of up to five independent trials, n = 20 trials (4 blocks, bulk), 22 trials (5 blocks, bulkHC), and 50 trials (10 blocks, TFTEC). c, Thermal stimulation on the residual limb with the thin-film device leads to faster reaction times; however, the bulkHC device was perceived faster on trials that were felt as cooling sensations in the phantom hand. There were no significant differences across the devices on trials that were perceived as warming. d, Perceived intensity was similar across all devices and stimulation sites for this participant, with the exception of the thin-film device eliciting slightly stronger cooling sensations on the arm and the bulkHC device eliciting slightly stronger sensations on trials perceived as warming. a, c, d, Number of independent trials for each condition that elicited thermal perception is given by n. Total number of independent trials, including those that did not elicit thermal perception, for each condition was 10 (A1 arm TFTEC); 5 (A1 bulk, phantom TFTEC); 10 (A4 bulk, arm bulkHC); 12 (A4 bulkHC phantom); and 25 (A4 TFTEC). Data represents independent trials and bars represent mean ± s.e.m of individual trials. P values were generated with a two-sided Mann-Whitney U test.
