Literature DB >> 6659991

Projected and receptive fields: a comparison of projected areas of sensations evoked by intraneural stimulation of mechanoreceptive units, and their innervation territories.

W J Schady, H E Torebjörk.   

Abstract

Microneurography and intraneural microstimulation were employed in awake human subjects to study the characteristics of cutaneous mechanoreceptive units and the sensations mediated by them. 172 units innervating the hand and forearm were identified as either PC, RA (FA in hairy skin), SA I or SA II. Analysis of action potential waveforms in a sample of units suggests that most recordings were from within the myelin sheath. Receptive fields of RA and SA I units were significantly smaller than those of PC and SA II units and showed a proximodistal size gradient, which the latter two did not. The quality of sensations evoked by intraneural stimulation was determined by the type of unit activated, except in the case of SA II units, and their magnitude could be influenced by mechanical coactivation of other sensory units. As a rule projected fields of evoked sensations were larger the further away they were from the limb tip. This grading indicates that inputs from single mechanoreceptive units are processed differently according to their source and sensory submodality, possibly as a result of unequal "resolving powers" of the corresponding cortical neurons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6659991     DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1983.tb07337.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Physiol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6772


  14 in total

1.  The detection of human finger movement is not facilitated by input from receptors in adjacent digits.

Authors:  K M Refshauge; D F Collins; S C Gandevia
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2003-06-18       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Central changes in processing of mechanoreceptive input in capsaicin-induced secondary hyperalgesia in humans.

Authors:  H E Torebjörk; L E Lundberg; R H LaMotte
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 5.182

3.  Gating of tactile input from the hand. I. Effects of finger movement.

Authors:  R F Schmidt; W J Schady; H E Torebjörk
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Gating of tactile input from the hand. II. Effects of remote movements and anaesthesia.

Authors:  R F Schmidt; H E Torebjörk; W J Schady
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  A new method for demonstration of central effects of analgesic agents in man.

Authors:  H E Torebjörk; W Schady; J L Ochoa
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 10.154

6.  Perceptual responses to microstimulation of single afferents innervating joints, muscles and skin of the human hand.

Authors:  G Macefield; S C Gandevia; D Burke
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 5.182

7.  Diminutive digits discern delicate details: fingertip size and the sex difference in tactile spatial acuity.

Authors:  Ryan M Peters; Erik Hackeman; Daniel Goldreich
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Sensations evoked by intraneural microstimulation of C nociceptor fibres in human skin nerves.

Authors:  J Ochoa; E Torebjörk
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 5.182

9.  Visual and somatosensory information contribute to distortions of the body model.

Authors:  Valeria Peviani; Lucia Melloni; Gabriella Bottini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-09-19       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Effect of vibration characteristics and vibror arrangement on the tactile perception of the upper arm in healthy subjects and upper limb amputees.

Authors:  Matthieu Guemann; Sandra Bouvier; Christophe Halgand; Florent Paclet; Leo Borrini; Damien Ricard; Eric Lapeyre; Daniel Cattaert; Aymar de Rugy
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 4.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.