Statistical analysis and modeling of variance in the SA-I mechanoreceptor response to sustained indentation

The slowly-adapting type I mechanoreceptor (SA-I) exhibits variability in its steady-state firing rate both within an afferent upon repeated stimulation and between afferents. Additionally, inter-spike intervals of the SA-I are extremely variable during this steady-state firing. While variability of the SA-I response has been noted previously, the work presented herein provides a finer analysis of the impact of force and fiber on the SA-I response. Specifically, we test two hypotheses, that 1) fiber-to-fiber variation will significantly impact firing rate over the range of applied forces, and that 2) fiber-to-fiber variation will significantly impact the coefficient of variation (CV) of inter-spike intervals over the range of applied forces. Utilizing an ex vivo skin nerve preparation in the mouse, experiments were conducted with six SA-I fibers from five mice, and with compressive stimuli with force magnitudes up to 9.59 mN. We found fiber to significantly impact both firing rate and CV. These findings motivated the construction of a generalized input (force) – output (firing rate) model composed of a baseline response profile and a multiplicative fiber sensitivity factor. This work will inform future efforts to attribute variability to differences in skin, neuron, and receptor properties, and will contribute to the understanding of how much variability is acceptable in systems designed to provide tactile feedback to the nervous system.

[1]  H Burton,et al.  Attending to and Remembering Tactile Stimuli: A Review of Brain Imaging Data and Single-Neuron Responses , 2000, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[2]  R. Johansson Tactile sensibility in the human hand: receptive field characteristics of mechanoreceptive units in the glabrous skin area. , 1978, The Journal of physiology.

[3]  P. Reeh,et al.  Sensory receptors in mammalian skin in an in vitro preparation , 1986, Neuroscience Letters.

[4]  V. Mountcastle,et al.  NEURAL ACTIVITY IN MECHANORECEPTIVE CUTANEOUS AFFERENTS: STIMULUS-RESPONSE RELATIONS, WEBER FUNCTIONS, AND INFORMATION TRANSMISSION. , 1965, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  M. Paré,et al.  Magnitude estimation of tangential force applied to the fingerpad , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  K W Horch,et al.  Impulse generation in type I cutaneous mechanoreceptors. , 1974, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  N. Segil,et al.  Math1-driven GFP expression in the developing nervous system of transgenic mice. , 2003, Gene expression patterns : GEP.

[8]  F. Looft Response of monkey glabrous skin mechanoreceptors to random-noise sequences: I. Temporal response characteristics. , 1994, Somatosensory & motor research.

[9]  M. Knibestöl Stimulus‐response functions of slowly adapting mechanoreceptors in the human glabrous skin area. , 1975, The Journal of physiology.

[10]  G.S. Dhillon,et al.  Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[11]  P. Khalsa,et al.  Encoding of compressive stress during indentation by slowly adapting type I mechanoreceptors in rat hairy skin. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  Z. Halata,et al.  [The Merkel cell: morphology, developmental origin, function]. , 2003, Casopis lekaru ceskych.

[13]  L. M. Ward,et al.  Stochastic resonance and sensory information processing: a tutorial and review of application , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[14]  A. R. Muir,et al.  The structure and function of a slowly adapting touch corpuscle in hairy skin , 1969, The Journal of physiology.

[15]  R. Johansson,et al.  Sensitivity to edges of mechanoreceptive afferent units innervating the glabrous skin of the human hand , 1982, Brain Research.

[16]  A. Freeman,et al.  Cutaneous mechanoreceptors in macaque monkey: temporal discharge patterns evoked by vibration, and a receptor model , 1982, The Journal of physiology.

[17]  D. Cain,et al.  Response properties of mechanoreceptors and nociceptors in mouse glabrous skin: an in vivo study. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  A W Goodwin,et al.  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 , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  K. O. Johnson,et al.  Tactile spatial resolution. II. Neural representation of Bars, edges, and gratings in monkey primary afferents. , 1981, Journal of neurophysiology.

[20]  Maria A. Serrat,et al.  Alterations in the Mechanical Properties and Composition of Skin in Human Growth Hormone Transgenic Mice , 2007, Connective tissue research.

[21]  A. Goodwin,et al.  How is tactile information affected by parameters of the population such as non-uniform fiber sensitivity, innervation geometry and response variability? , 2002, Behavioural Brain Research.

[22]  C. Stucky,et al.  Receptive properties of mouse sensory neurons innervating hairy skin. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  Y. Usson,et al.  Merkel complexes of human digital skin: Three‐dimensional imaging with confocal laser microscopy and double immunofluorescence , 1998, The Journal of comparative neurology.