Literature DB >> 20592123

Stimulus novelty, and not neural refractoriness, explains the repetition suppression of laser-evoked potentials.

A L Wang1, A Mouraux, M Liang, G D Iannetti.   

Abstract

Brief radiant laser pulses selectively activate skin nociceptors and elicit transient brain responses (laser-evoked potentials [LEPs]). When LEPs are elicited by pairs of stimuli (S1-S2) delivered at different interstimulus intervals (ISIs), the S2-LEP is strongly reduced at short ISIs (250 ms) and progressively recovers at longer ISIs (2,000 ms). This finding has been interpreted in terms of order of arrival of nociceptive volleys and refractoriness of neural generators of LEPs. However, an alternative explanation is the modulation of another experimental factor: the novelty of the eliciting stimulus. To test this alternative hypothesis, we recorded LEPs elicited by pairs of nociceptive stimuli delivered at four ISIs (250, 500, 1,000, 2,000 ms), using two different conditions. In the constant condition, the ISI was identical across the trials of each block, whereas in the variable condition, the ISI was varied randomly across trials and single-stimulus trials were intermixed with paired trials. Therefore the time of occurrence of S2 was both less novel and more predictable in the constant than in the variable condition. In the constant condition, we observed a significant ISI-dependent suppression of the biphasic negative-positive wave (N2-P2) complex of the S2-LEP. In contrast, in the variable condition, the S2-LEP was completely unaffected by stimulus repetition. The pain ratings elicited by S2 were not different in the two conditions. These results indicate that the repetition-suppression of the S2-LEP is not due to refractoriness in nociceptive afferent pathways, but to a modulation of novelty and/or temporal predictability of the eliciting stimulus. This provides further support to the notion that stimulus saliency constitutes a crucial determinant of LEP magnitude and that a significant fraction of the brain activity time-locked to a brief and transient sensory stimulus is not directly related to the quality and the intensity of the corresponding sensation, but to bottom-up attentional processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20592123     DOI: 10.1152/jn.01088.2009

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


  23 in total

1.  Assessment of nonlinear interactions in event-related potentials elicited by stimuli presented at short interstimulus intervals using single-trial data.

Authors:  Charalambos Loizides; Achilleas Achilleos; Gian Domenico Iannetti; Georgios D Mitsis
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Novelty is not enough: laser-evoked potentials are determined by stimulus saliency, not absolute novelty.

Authors:  I Ronga; E Valentini; A Mouraux; G D Iannetti
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Spatio-temporal dynamics of adaptation in the human visual system: a high-density electrical mapping study.

Authors:  Gizely N Andrade; John S Butler; Manuel R Mercier; Sophie Molholm; John J Foxe
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 3.386

4.  EEG captures affective touch: CT-optimal touch and neural oscillations.

Authors:  Mariana von Mohr; Michael J Crowley; Jessica Walthall; Linda C Mayes; Kevin A Pelphrey; Helena J V Rutherford
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.282

5.  Real time fMRI feedback of the anterior cingulate and posterior insular cortex in the processing of pain.

Authors:  Mariela Rance; Michaela Ruttorf; Frauke Nees; Lothar Rudi Schad; Herta Flor
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Context-dependent plasticity in the subcortical encoding of linguistic pitch patterns.

Authors:  Joseph C Y Lau; Patrick C M Wong; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 7.  From the neuromatrix to the pain matrix (and back).

Authors:  G D Iannetti; A Mouraux
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 8.  Chronic pain: the role of learning and brain plasticity.

Authors:  A R Mansour; M A Farmer; M N Baliki; A Vania Apkarian
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 9.  Nociception, Pain, Negative Moods, and Behavior Selection.

Authors:  Marwan N Baliki; A Vania Apkarian
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 17.173

10.  Predictability of painful stimulation modulates the somatosensory-evoked potential in the rat.

Authors:  Manon W H Schaap; Hugo van Oostrom; Arie Doornenbal; Annemarie M Baars; Saskia S Arndt; Ludo J Hellebrekers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.