Literature DB >> 8335066

Population estimates for responses of cutaneous mechanoreceptors to a vertically indenting probe on the glabrous skin of monkeys.

R H Cohen1, C J Vierck.   

Abstract

Recordings were obtained from low-threshold mechanoreceptive afferents during stimulation with a 0.5-mm-diameter probe at the receptive field (RF) center and at different distances from the point of maximal sensitivity. At each location, force-controlled stimuli of 0.5-4.0 g were ramped on to a plateau and then off at rates of 1, 10, and 100 g/s. The properties of rapidly adapting (RA) and slowly adapting type I (SAI) mechanoreceptors, when stimulated at the RF center, were similar in many respects to those reported in previous studies. Controlled stimulation away from the RF centers revealed that RF size for RAs was primarily dependent upon ramp rate, and for SAIs the size of the RF was primarily dependent upon load (force). The action potentials from individual afferents during stimulation at each location were binned in time and assigned to spatial segments of 1 mm. These responses were multiplied by: (A) an annular area of the receptive field and (B) the innervation density for the afferent type and skin region. The calculations provided estimates of overall rates of activity among the population of cutaneous afferents that respond to indentation by a small probe. Important differences were obtained between the responses of the population of afferents activated by the trapezoidal stimulus and the responses of afferents stimulated only at the RF center. Populations of tactile afferents provide more information for rate and intensity (force) discriminations than is available from units stimulated at the RF center. For RA afferents, the exponent of the power function describing relationships between stimulus rate and the population discharge (in impulses per second) was 0.3 times greater than the exponent for responses to on-center stimulation. For SAI mechanoreceptors, the exponent of the power functions for static responses to force was 0.22 times greater for the population response than for on-center activation. Population functions for RA responses to the rate of force application and for SAI responses to static load saturated less than comparable responses to stimulation of the RF center. Thus, the coding capacity of the population extends the range of tactile discriminability. The slope and range of stimulus-response functions for populations was enhanced relative to responses to on-center stimulation. This occurs because of recruitment of afferents with RF centers adjacent to and remote from the stimulus, depending upon thresholds and receptive field sizes for different stimulus parameters. With stimulation at increasing rates and forces, there is a progressive spatial recruitment of receptors.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8335066     DOI: 10.1007/bf00230474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  40 in total

1.  Stimulus-response functions of slowly adapting mechanoreceptors in the human glabrous skin area.

Authors:  M Knibestöl
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1975-02       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Effect of mechanical stimulus spread across glabrous skin of raccoon and squirrel monkey hand on tactile primary afferent fiber discharge.

Authors:  B H Pubols
Journal:  Somatosens Res       Date:  1987

Review 3.  Spread of skin deformation and mechanoreceptor discharge.

Authors:  B H Pubols
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.453

Review 4.  Quantitative neural and psychophysical data for cutaneous mechanoreceptor function.

Authors:  L Kruger; B Kenton
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1973-01-15       Impact factor: 3.252

5.  Cortical neuronal mechanisms in flutter-vibration studied in unanesthetized monkeys. Neuronal periodicity and frequency discrimination.

Authors:  V B Mountcastle; W H Talbot; H Sakata; J Hyvärinen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1969-05       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Representation of the body surface in somatic koniocortex in the prosimian Galago.

Authors:  M Sur; R J Nelson; J H Kaas
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  1980-01-15       Impact factor: 3.215

7.  Reconstruction of population response to a vibratory stimulus in quickly adapting mechanoreceptive afferent fiber population innervating glabrous skin of the monkey.

Authors:  K O Johnson
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Neural coding in the sense of touch: human sensations of skin indentation compared with the responses of slowly adapting mechanoreceptive afferents innvervating the hairy skin of monkeys.

Authors:  T Harrington; M M Merzenich
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1970       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Coding of mechanical stimulus velocity and indentation depth by squirrel monkey and raccoon glabrous skin mechanoreceptors.

Authors:  B H Pubols; L M Pubols
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1976-07       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  The neural signal for skin indentation depth. I. Changing indentations.

Authors:  P R Burgess; J Mei; R P Tuckett; K W Horch; C M Ballinger; D A Poulos
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  10 in total

1.  Modality maps within primate somatosensory cortex.

Authors:  Robert M Friedman; Li Min Chen; Anna Wang Roe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-08-12       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Tristate markov model for the firing statistics of rapidly-adapting mechanoreceptive fibers.

Authors:  Burak Güçlü; Stanley J Bolanowski
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.621

Review 3.  Tactile intensity and population codes.

Authors:  Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Neural Coding of Contact Events in Somatosensory Cortex.

Authors:  Thierri Callier; Aneesha K Suresh; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Testing Assumptions in Human Pain Models: Psychophysical Differences Between First and Second Pain.

Authors:  Nathanial R Eckert; Charles J Vierck; Corey B Simon; Yenisel Cruz-Almeida; Roger B Fillingim; Joseph L Riley
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 5.820

6.  Tactile discrimination of edge shape: limits on spatial resolution imposed by parameters of the peripheral neural population.

Authors:  H E Wheat; A W Goodwin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2001-10-01       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Effects of nonuniform fiber sensitivity, innervation geometry, and noise on information relayed by a population of slowly adapting type I primary afferents from the fingerpad.

Authors:  A W Goodwin; H E Wheat
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1999-09-15       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Relationships between touch sensations and estimated population responses of peripheral afferent mechanoreceptors.

Authors:  R H Cohen; C J Vierck
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  The neural coding of stimulus intensity: linking the population response of mechanoreceptive afferents with psychophysical behavior.

Authors:  Michael A Muniak; Supratim Ray; Steven S Hsiao; J Frank Dammann; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Continuous supplementary tactile feedback can be applied (and then removed) to enhance precision manipulation.

Authors:  Leonardo Cappello; Waleed Alghilan; Massimiliano Gabardi; Daniele Leonardis; Michele Barsotti; Antonio Frisoli; Christian Cipriani
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 4.262

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.