Literature DB >> 19164108

Position sensitivity of feline paraspinal muscle spindles to vertebral movement in the lumbar spine.

Dong-Yuan Cao1, Joel G Pickar, Weiginq Ge, Allyson Ianuzzi, Partap S Khalsa.   

Abstract

Muscle spindles contribute to sensorimotor control by supplying feedback regarding muscle length and consequently information about joint position. While substantial study has been devoted to determining the position sensitivity of spindles in limb muscles, there appears to be no data on their sensitivity in the low back. We determined the relationship between lumbar paraspinal muscle spindle discharge and paraspinal muscle lengthening estimated from controlled cranialward movement of the L(6) vertebra in anesthetized cats. Ramp (0.4 mm/s) and hold displacements (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.2 mm for 2.5 s) were applied at the L(6) spinous process. Position sensitivity was defined as the slope of the relationship between the estimated increase in muscle length and mean instantaneous frequency at each length. To enable comparisons with appendicular muscle spindles where joint angle was measured, we also calculated sensitivity in terms of the L(6) and L(7) intervertebral flexion angle (IVA). This angle was estimated from measurements of facet joint capsule strain (FJC) based on a previously established relationship between IVA and FJC strain in the cat lumbar vertebral column during lumbar flexion. Single-unit recordings were obtained from 12 muscle spindle afferents. Longissimus and multifidus muscles contained the receptive field of 10 and 2 afferents, respectively. Mean position sensitivity was 16.3 imp.s(-1).mm(-1) [10.6-22.1, 95% confidence interval (CI), P < 0.001]. Mean angular sensitivity was 5.2 imp.s(-1). degrees (-1) (2.6-8.0, P < 0.003). These slope estimates were more than 3.5 times greater compared with appendicular muscle spindles, and their CIs did not contain previous slope estimates for the sensitivity of appendicular spindles from the literature. Potential reasons for and the significance of the apparently high position sensitivity in the lumbar spine are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19164108      PMCID: PMC2695637          DOI: 10.1152/jn.90976.2008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  45 in total

1.  Classification and response characteristics of muscle spindle afferents in the primate.

Authors:  P D Cheney; J B Preston
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1976-01       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Synaptic inputs from low threshold afferents of trunk muscles to motoneurons innervating the longissimus lumborum muscle in the spinal cat.

Authors:  Naomi Wada; Kuniaki Takahashi; Kenro Kanda
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-02-26       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  A universal model of the lumbar back muscles in the upright position.

Authors:  N Bogduk; J E Macintosh; M J Pearcy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Vertebral position alters paraspinal muscle spindle responsiveness in the feline spine: effect of positioning duration.

Authors:  Weiqing Ge; Cynthia R Long; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2005-10-06       Impact factor: 5.182

5.  Spinal projection of spindle afferents of the longissimus lumborum muscles of the cat.

Authors:  R Durbaba; A Taylor; P H Ellaway; S Rawlinson
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2007-01-25       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 6.  Kinesthetic sensibility.

Authors:  D I McCloskey
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 37.312

7.  Mechanical influence of the extrafusal muscle on the static behaviour of deefferented primary muscle spindle endings in cat.

Authors:  J Meyer-Lohmann; W Riebold; D Robrecht
Journal:  Pflugers Arch       Date:  1974       Impact factor: 3.657

8.  Static stretch sensitivity of Ia and II afferents in the cat's gastrocnemius.

Authors:  B R Botterman; E Eldred
Journal:  Pflugers Arch       Date:  1982-11-11       Impact factor: 3.657

9.  Differences in repositioning error among patients with low back pain compared with control subjects.

Authors:  K L Newcomer; E R Laskowski; B Yu; J C Johnson; K N An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 10.  Physiological properties of tandem muscle spindles in neck and hind-limb muscles.

Authors:  R F Price; M B Dutia
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.453

View more
  12 in total

1.  Lengthening but not shortening history of paraspinal muscle spindles in the low back alters their dynamic sensitivity.

Authors:  Dong-Yuan Cao; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  The decreased responsiveness of lumbar muscle spindles to a prior history of spinal muscle lengthening is graded with the magnitude of change in vertebral position.

Authors:  Weiqing Ge; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 2.368

3.  Thoracolumbar fascia does not influence proprioceptive signaling from lumbar paraspinal muscle spindles in the cat.

Authors:  Dong-Yuan Cao; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2009-07-22       Impact factor: 2.610

4.  Neural responses to the mechanical characteristics of high velocity, low amplitude spinal manipulation: Effect of specific contact site.

Authors:  William R Reed; Cynthia R Long; Gregory N Kawchuk; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  Man Ther       Date:  2015-03-27

Review 5.  Spinal manipulative therapy and somatosensory activation.

Authors:  J G Pickar; P S Bolton
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2012-02-19       Impact factor: 2.368

6.  Neural responses to the mechanical parameters of a high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation: effect of preload parameters.

Authors:  William R Reed; Cynthia R Long; Gregory N Kawchuk; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 1.437

7.  Dynamic responsiveness of lumbar paraspinal muscle spindles during vertebral movement in the cat.

Authors:  Dong-Yuan Cao; Partap S Khalsa; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-07-10       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Using vertebral movement and intact paraspinal muscles to determine the distribution of intrafusal fiber innervation of muscle spindle afferents in the anesthetized cat.

Authors:  William R Reed; Dong-Yuan Cao; Weiqing Ge; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Effects of thrust amplitude and duration of high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation on lumbar muscle spindle responses to vertebral position and movement.

Authors:  Dong-Yuan Cao; William R Reed; Cynthia R Long; Gregory N Kawchuk; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.437

10.  Effect of changing lumbar stiffness by single facet joint dysfunction on the responsiveness of lumbar muscle spindles to vertebral movement.

Authors:  William R Reed; Joel G Pickar; Cynthia R Long
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2014-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.