No abstract

No abstract

SUMMARY1. In cats anaesthetized with Nembutal, the cutaneous receptive fields of individual cerebellar climbing fibres were assessed by recording the climbing fibre responses of single Purkyn6 cells following controlled mechanical stimulation (air jets, vibration, taps, pressure) of the foot pads of all four limbs and of the hairy skin of the limbs and the body.2. Three major types of cutaneous receptive fields of individual climbing fibres were recognized: (a) restricted fields generally confined to the distal areas of one limb only; (b) circumscribed fields on the distal areas of two to four limbs (discontinuous fields); and (c) widespread continuous fields extending over all or almost all of the body surface. A fourth group appears to receive cutaneous inputs from one limb and sensory input from deeper structures in other limbs.3. Thresholds for tapping of the foot pads were often quite low (< 100,um indentation), and there was no noticeable difference in the distribution of thresholds between the climbing fibres having restricted or more widespread cutaneous receptive fields. Similarly, the latencies of climbing fibre responses evoked by vibration and tapping were in the same ranges for climbing fibres with receptive fields restricted to one limb only and for those having more widespread fields. 4. In regard to location in the anterior lobe of the cerebellum it was found that those climbing fibres receiving inputs only from the ipsilateral forelimb projected to Purkyn6 cells located almost entirely in lobule V, whereas all other climbing fibres with restricted or more widespread receptive fields projected to Purkyn6 cells distributed widely within lobules II to V.

No abstract

The monomer reactivity ratios (MMRs) in radical copolymerization for styrene and methyl methacrylate were recalculated by five different methods using literature copolymerization data. The use of approximate 95% confidence limits and their visual inspection helps to separate possibly biased copolymer composition data. The recalculated mean MRR values were r1 (styrene) = 0.501 ± 0.031 and r2 = 0.472 ± 0.031. The results of the linear least‐squares calculation procedures seldom approach the quality of the nonlinear least‐squares analysis according to the method of Tidwell and Mortimer.