Literature DB >> 15147782

Responsiveness of human nasal mucosa to trigeminal stimuli depends on the site of stimulation.

Johannes Frasnelli1, Stefan Heilmann, Thomas Hummel.   

Abstract

There is evidence that functionally different areas can be distinguished within the nasal mucosa with regard to stimulation site and stimulus properties. The aim of the present study was the comparison of electrophysiological and psychophysical measures obtained in response to mechanical and chemosomatosensory stimulation of two different regions of the nasal mucosa. A total of 40 volunteers participated in this study (age range 21-36 years). Chemosomatosensory event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded using gaseous CO2 as stimulant, while somatosensory ERPs were recorded in response to intranasal mechanical stimuli (air puffs). Stimuli were released to the anterior portion and to the posterior portion of the nasal cavity. A significant interaction between stimulus properties and site of stimulation could be detected after analysis of ERP parameters and intensity ratings. Thus, the chemosensory stimulus was perceived as stronger in the anterior portion of the nasal cavity whereas this was not the case for mechanosensory stimuli. In addition, mechanosensory stimuli were found to evoke ERPs with shorter latencies. These results underline the idea that the respiratory mucosa should not be seen as a homogeneous tissue. It exhibits varying sensitivities to trigeminal stimulation depending on stimulus quality and site of stimulation. Hence, perception of chemosensory stimuli seems to be most accurate in the anterior portion of the nasal cavity, while sensitivity to mechanical stimuli appears to be highest in the posterior portion. In addition, these differences within the respiratory mucosa may contribute to differences in the perception of orthonasal and retronasal odorous stimulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15147782     DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2004.02.059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosci Lett        ISSN: 0304-3940            Impact factor:   3.046


  5 in total

1.  Responses of the rat olfactory epithelium to retronasal air flow.

Authors:  John W Scott; Humberto P Acevedo; Lisa Sherrill; Maggie Phan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Intranasal trigeminal sensitivity: measurements before and after nasal surgery.

Authors:  M Scheibe; S Schulze; C A Mueller; B Schuster; Thomas Hummel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Correlation between Subjective Nasal Patency and Intranasal Airflow Distribution.

Authors:  Kevin P Casey; Azadeh A T Borojeni; Lisa J Koenig; John S Rhee; Guilherme J M Garcia
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 3.497

4.  Photoactivation of olfactory sensory neurons does not affect action potential conduction in individual trigeminal sensory axons innervating the rodent nasal cavity.

Authors:  Margot Maurer; Nunzia Papotto; Julika Sertel-Nakajima; Markus Schueler; Roberto De Col; Frank Möhrlen; Karl Messlinger; Stephan Frings; Richard W Carr
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Numerical simulation of airflow fields in two typical nasal structures of empty nose syndrome: a computational fluid dynamics study.

Authors:  Meng-Yang Di; Zhe Jiang; Zhi-Qiang Gao; Zhi Li; Yi-Ran An; Wei Lv
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.