Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

The sense of touch in the star-nosed mole: from mechanoreceptors to the brain

Catania, Kenneth C.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2011

Peer-reviewednarrative reviewmixed

Reviews the anatomy of the mole’s twenty-two fleshy appendages and the roughly twenty-five thousand Eimer’s organs distributed over them, the disproportionate cortical representation of the star, and high-speed behavioural work on how prey are found, identified and eaten.

Studied in
Condylura cristata
Sample size
synthesis of anatomical, electrophysiological and behavioural work on one species

The star is a tactile organ of extreme resolution, with one small pair of appendages functioning as a tactile fovea that the animal moves onto anything of interest, and prey identification and consumption completed in well under a quarter of a second.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

The star-nosed mole’s star is a touch analogue of a visual system, including a fovea, saccade-like movements and a magnified cortical map.

How NatureHQ reads it

The best available answer to what a sense would look like if touch, rather than vision, were an animal’s primary way of examining the world — and the answer is that it looks remarkably like vision. There is a high-resolution region the animal aims at things, rapid movements that bring targets into it, and a brain map in which that region occupies far more space than its size warrants. The convergence is the finding; the eleven-appendages-per-side anatomy is the memorable part.

  • One species, and one so specialised that generalising from it is unwise.
  • A review; the behavioural timings come from a small number of individuals.
  • The comparison with vision is an analogy supported by structure, not an identity.

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: The Royal SocietyPublished by the Royal Society.

doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0128

Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.

NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-02.