Literature DB >> 22497800

Do we activate specifically somatosensory thin fibres with the concentric planar electrode? A scalp and intracranial EEG study.

Caroline Perchet1, Maud Frot, Audran Charmarty, Cecilia Flores, Stephanie Mazza, Michel Magnin, Luis Garcia-Larrea.   

Abstract

Laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) are acknowledged as the most reliable laboratory tool for assessing thermal and pain pathways. Electrical stimulation with a newly developed planar concentric electrode, delivering stimuli limited to the superficial skin layers, has been suggested to provide selective activation of Aδ fibres without the inconveniences linked to laser stimulation. The aim of our study was to compare the scalp and intracranial responses to planar concentric electrode stimulation (CE-SEPs) with those of LEPs and standard somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs). Sixteen healthy subjects, 6 patients with intracortical electrodes, and 2 patients with selective lesions of the spinothalamic pathway were submitted to Neodymium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Perovskite laser stimulations, and electrical stimulations using standard electrodes or planar concentric electrodes (CE). In both healthy controls and epileptic implanted patients, CE- and standard SEPs showed significantly shorter latencies than LEPs. This is consistent with Aβ-fibre activation, peripheral activation time being unable to account for longer LEP latencies. In the patients with spinothalamic lesions, LEPs were absent after stimulation of the affected territory, while CE-SEPs were still present. For these 2 reasons, we conclude that the planar CE does not selectively activate the Aδ and C fibers, but coexcites a significant proportion of large myelinated Aβ fibres that dominate the ensuing cortical response. The use of CE-SEPs for the detection of spinothalamic system lesions is therefore not warranted; the planar electrode can, however, represent a useful tool to study nociceptive reflexes, which can be reliably elicited even in the presence of Aβ coactivation.
Copyright © 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22497800     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.03.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  13 in total

1.  Pain networks from the inside: Spatiotemporal analysis of brain responses leading from nociception to conscious perception.

Authors:  Hélène Bastuji; Maud Frot; Caroline Perchet; Michel Magnin; Luis Garcia-Larrea
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Uncertainty during pain anticipation: the adaptive value of preparatory processes.

Authors:  Eva-Maria Seidel; Daniela M Pfabigan; Andreas Hahn; Ronald Sladky; Arvina Grahl; Katharina Paul; Christoph Kraus; Martin Küblböck; Georg S Kranz; Allan Hummer; Rupert Lanzenberger; Christian Windischberger; Claus Lamm
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Somatosensory spatial attention modulates amplitudes, latencies, and latency jitter of laser-evoked brain potentials.

Authors:  Marcel Franz; Moritz M Nickel; Alexander Ritter; Wolfgang H R Miltner; Thomas Weiss
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Reliability of the nociceptive blink reflex evoked by electrical stimulation of the trigeminal nerve in humans.

Authors:  Yuri Martins Costa; Lene Baad-Hansen; Leonardo Rigoldi Bonjardim; Paulo César Rodrigues Conti; Peter Svensson
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 5.  Reappraising neuropathic pain in humans--how symptoms help disclose mechanisms.

Authors:  Andrea Truini; Luis Garcia-Larrea; Giorgio Cruccu
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 42.937

Review 6.  How to diagnose neuropathic pain? The contribution from clinical examination, pain questionnaires and diagnostic tests.

Authors:  S La Cesa; S Tamburin; V Tugnoli; G Sandrini; S Paolucci; M Lacerenza; P Marchettini; G Cruccu; A Truini
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 3.307

7.  Amplitudes of Pain-Related Evoked Potentials Are Useful to Detect Small Fiber Involvement in Painful Mixed Fiber Neuropathies in Addition to Quantitative Sensory Testing - An Electrophysiological Study.

Authors:  Niels Hansen; Ann-Kathrin Kahn; Daniel Zeller; Zaza Katsarava; Claudia Sommer; Nurcan Üçeyler
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 4.003

8.  Absence of Evidence or Evidence of Absence? Commentary: Captured by the pain: Pain steady-state evoked potentials are not modulated by selective spatial attention.

Authors:  Elisabeth Colon; André Mouraux
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Exploring the Mechanisms of Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia Using Somatosensory and Laser Evoked Potentials.

Authors:  Matthew D Jones; Janet L Taylor; John Booth; Benjamin K Barry
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 4.566

10.  Evoked potentials after painful cutaneous electrical stimulation depict pain relief during a conditioned pain modulation.

Authors:  Oliver Höffken; Özüm S Özgül; Elena K Enax-Krumova; Martin Tegenthoff; Christoph Maier
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 2.474

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.