Literature DB >> 9356401

Monkey cutaneous SAI and RA responses to raised and depressed scanned patterns: effects of width, height, orientation, and a raised surround.

D T Blake1, K O Johnson, S S Hsiao.   

Abstract

Monkey cutaneous SAI and RA responses to raised and depressed scanned patterns: effects of width, height, orientation, and a raised surround. J. Neurophysiol. 78: 2503-2517, 1997. The aim of this study was to examine the slowly adapting type I (SAI) and rapidly adapting (RA) primary afferent representation of raised and depressed surface features. Isolated, raised, and depressed squares and small raised squares with a circular surround were scanned across the receptive fields of SAI and RA mechanoreceptive afferents innervating the distal fingerpads of the rhesus monkey. Pattern height ranged from -620 to +620 micron and width ranged from 0.2 to 7.0 mm. The surround radii ranged from 3.0 to 7.0 mm. Previous combined psychophysical and neurophysiological studies have provided evidence that SAI afferent responses are responsible for the perception of spatial form and texture and that RA afferents are responsible for the detection of stimuli that produce minute skin motion (flutter, slip, microgeometric surface features). Our results strengthen these hypotheses. Response properties shared by both SAI and RA afferent types were that both responded only to the edges of the larger raised and depressed patterns, both responded to falling edges half as vigorously as to rising edges, both responded to rising and falling edges with impulse rates that were proportional to the sine of the angle between the edge and the scanning direction, and both had suppressed responses to a small raised surface feature when a raised surround was closer than 6 mm. Response differences consistent with the hypothesis that SAI afferents are specialized for the representation of form were that SAI responses were confined to areas around the features that evoked them in areas that were 40-50% smaller than the comparable RA response areas, SAI responses were more than four times more sensitive to stimulus height than were RA afferents over the range from 280 to 620 micron, and SAI (but not RA) afferents responded 20-50% more vigorously to corners than to edges. Response differences consistent with the hypothesis that RA afferents are specialized for the detection of minute surfaces features were that only RA afferents responded to very small surface depressions, depressed squares 0.8 mm wide, that were detectable by palpation. Mechanisms underlying the many differences in SAI and RA response properties are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9356401     DOI: 10.1152/jn.1997.78.5.2503

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


  23 in total

Review 1.  Neural coding and the basic law of psychophysics.

Authors:  Kenneth O Johnson; Steven S Hsiao; Takashi Yoshioka
Journal:  Neuroscientist       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.519

2.  The Meissner corpuscle revised: a multiafferented mechanoreceptor with nociceptor immunochemical properties.

Authors:  M Paré; R Elde; J E Mazurkiewicz; A M Smith; F L Rice
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2001-09-15       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Neuronal activity in somatosensory cortex related to tactile exploration.

Authors:  Pascal Fortier-Poisson; Allan M Smith
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Effect of blocking tactile information from the fingertips on adaptation and execution of grip forces to friction at the grasping surface.

Authors:  Seda Bilaloglu; Ying Lu; Daniel Geller; John Ross Rizzo; Viswanath Aluru; Esther P Gardner; Preeti Raghavan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Human touch receptors are sensitive to spatial details on the scale of single fingerprint ridges.

Authors:  Ewa Jarocka; J Andrew Pruszynski; Roland S Johansson
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Representation of object size in the somatosensory system.

Authors:  L J Berryman; J M Yau; S S Hsiao
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-04-26       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Functional Maps of Mechanosensory Features in the Drosophila Brain.

Authors:  Paola Patella; Rachel I Wilson
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 10.834

8.  Roughness of simulated surfaces examined with a haptic tool: effects of spatial period, friction, and resistance amplitude.

Authors:  Allan M Smith; Georges Basile; Jonathan Theriault-Groom; Pascal Fortier-Poisson; Gianni Campion; Vincent Hayward
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-12-11       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Velocity invariance of receptive field structure in somatosensory cortical area 3b of the alert monkey.

Authors:  J J DiCarlo; K O Johnson
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1999-01-01       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Examination of force discrimination in human upper limb amputees with reinnervated limb sensation following peripheral nerve transfer.

Authors:  Jonathon W Sensinger; Aimee E Schultz; Todd A Kuiken
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 3.802

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.