Inhibition within the trigeminal nucleus induced by afferent inputs and its influence on stimulus coding by mechanosensitive neurones

1. In decerebrate, unanaesthetized cats two thirds of slowly adapting mechanosensitive neurones sampled in the trigeminal nucleus oralis exhibited inhibition in response to conditioning mechanical stimulation applied beyond their excitatory receptive fields. The influence of this inhibition was examined over the response range of these neurones using controlled, reproducible natural stimulation procedures.

[1]  M. Jukes,et al.  Dual organization of the exteroceptive components of the cat's gracile nucleus , 1964, The Journal of physiology.

[2]  I. Darian‐Smith,et al.  Functional organization in the trigeminal main sensory and rostral spinal nuclei of the cat , 1963, Journal of Physiology.

[3]  E. Perl,et al.  Cutaneous projection to second-order neurons of the dorsal column system. , 1962, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  W. R. Garner.  Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts , 1975 .

[5]  M. Rowe.  Reduction of response variability in the somatic sensory system by conditioning inputs. , 1970, Brain research.

[6]  J. Olszewski,et al.  On the anatomical and functional organization of the spinal trigeminal nucleus , 1950, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[7]  W. R. Garner.  Applications of Information Theory to Psychology , 1959 .

[8]  M. Rowe,et al.  Somatic afferent input to posterior thalamic neurones and their axon projection to the cerebral cortex in the cat , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[9]  M. Rowe,et al.  "Tactile" stimulus intensity: information transmission by relay neurons in different trigeminal nuclei. , 1968, Science.

[10]  Dorsal Root Potentials evoked by Natural Stimulation of Cutaneous Afferents , 1966, Nature.

[11]  M. Rowe,et al.  Afferent inhibition over the response range of secondary trigeminal neurones. , 1970, Brain research.

[12]  G. Gordon.  The Concept of Relay Nuclei , 1973 .

[13]  I. Darian‐Smith.  PRESYNAPTIC COMPONENT IN THE AFFERENT INHIBITION OBSERVED WITHIN TRIGEMINAL BRAIN-STEM NUCLEI OF THE CAT. , 1965, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  V. Mountcastle.  Modality and topographic properties of single neurons of cat's somatic sensory cortex. , 1957, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  S. Landgren,et al.  The functional characteristics of single cells in the caudal part of the spinal nucleus of the trigeminal nerve of the cat , 1961, The Journal of physiology.

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

[17]  I. Darian‐Smith,et al.  Corticofugal effects on different neuron types within the cat's brain stem activated by tactile stimulation of the face. , 1966, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  G. Gordon,et al.  Functional organization in nucleus gracilis of the cat , 1960, The Journal of physiology.

[19]  P. Wall,et al.  The laminar organization of dorsal horn and effects of descending impulses , 1967, The Journal of physiology.

[20]  M. Rowe,et al.  Responses of trigeminal ganglion and brain stem neurones in the cat to mechanical and thermal stimulation of the face. , 1972, Brain research.

[21]  G. GORDON,et al.  Correlation of Different Excitatory and Inhibitory Influences on Cells in the Nucleus Gracilis of the Cat , 1962, Nature.

[22]  M. Zigler.  Touch and kinesthesis. , 1930 .