Cerebral Somatosensory Potentials Evoked by Muscle Stretch, Cutaneous Taps and Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves in the Lower Limbs in Man

Cohen, Leo G.; Starr, Arnold; Pratt, Hillel

doi:10.1093/brain/108.1.103

Cited by 58 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A weak phasic tendon tap is a selective stimulus for the primary sensory endings of muscle spindles Cohen and Starr 1985a;Cohen et al 1985;Murthy et al 1978;Stuart et al 1970), which were probably the most important type of mechanoreceptors activated in our study Macefield 2005;Macefield et al 1989). A brief phasic stretch of a muscle activates Ia afferents with a latency of 2 to 5 ms due to the time needed for propagation of the percussion wave and muscle spindle signal transduction (Cohen et al 1985;Paintal 1959).…”

Section: Muscle Afferents Activated By Mechanical Tendon Tapsmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…A brief phasic stretch of a muscle activates Ia afferents with a latency of 2 to 5 ms due to the time needed for propagation of the percussion wave and muscle spindle signal transduction (Cohen et al 1985;Paintal 1959). The afferent volley thus generated is probably composed of a relatively long-lasting burst of impulses from a number of receptors.…”

Section: Muscle Afferents Activated By Mechanical Tendon Tapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early cortical SEPs elicited by tendon taps and muscle stretch result from activation of primary muscle spindle endings, without significant contribution from joint, ligament, tendon, or skin mechanoreceptors (Ackermann et al 1992;Cohen and Starr 1985a,b;Cohen et al 1985;Morita et al 1998;Pratt et al 1979;Starr et al 1981). Compared with SEPs evoked by electrical nerve stimulation, SEPs elicited by mechanical taps have smaller amplitude and shorter latency (Cohen and Starr 1985a;Cohen et al 1985) probably due to the desynchronization of the afferent volley and to the relatively more proximal location of the receptors activated with tendon taps because the fastest muscle afferents from the upper limb do not conduct more rapidly than the fastest cutaneous afferents of the digital nerves (Macefield et al 1989).…”

Section: Muscle Afferents Activated By Mechanical Tendon Tapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with SEPs evoked by electrical nerve stimulation, SEPs elicited by mechanical taps have smaller amplitude and shorter latency (Cohen and Starr 1985a;Cohen et al 1985) probably due to the desynchronization of the afferent volley and to the relatively more proximal location of the receptors activated with tendon taps because the fastest muscle afferents from the upper limb do not conduct more rapidly than the fastest cutaneous afferents of the digital nerves (Macefield et al 1989).…”

Section: Muscle Afferents Activated By Mechanical Tendon Tapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Subcortical Interactions Between Somatosensory Stimuli of Different Modalities and Their Temporal Profile

Costa¹,

Valls‐Solé²,

Valldeoriola³

et al. 2008

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Costa J, Valls-Solé J, Valldeoriola F, Rumià J. Subcortical interactions between somatosensory stimuli of different modalities and their temporal profile. J Neurophysiol 100: 1610 -1621, 2008. First published July 2, 2008 doi:10.1152/jn.90412.2008. Interactions between inputs of different sensory modality occur along the sensory pathway, including the thalamus. However, the temporal profile of such interaction has not been fully studied. In eight patients who had been implanted an intrathalamic electrode for deep brain stimulation as symptomatic treatment of tremor, we investigated the interactions between mechanical taps and electrical nerve stimuli. Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) were recorded from Erb's point, cervical spinal cord, nucleus ventrointermedialis of the thalamus, and parietal cortex. A handheld electronic reflex hammer was used to deliver a mechanical tap to the skin overlying the first dorsal interosseous muscle and to trigger an ipsilateral digital median nerve electrical stimulus time-locked to the mechanical tap with a variable delay of 0 to 50 ms. There were significant time-dependent interactions between the two sensory volleys at the subcortical level. Thalamic SEPs were decreased in amplitude at interstimulus intervals (ISIs) from 10 to 40 ms with maximum effect at 20 ms (Ϫ42.8 Ϯ 10.5%; P Ͻ 0.001). A similar decrease was also seen in the number and frequency of the high-frequency components of thalamic SEPs (Ϫ25 Ϯ 4%). A smaller reduction (Ϫ18.1 Ϯ 5.8%; P Ͻ 0.001) was present in upper cervical response at ISI ϭ 20 ms. There were no changes in peripheral responses. Cortical SEPs were almost completely absent in some subjects at ISIs from 20 to 50 ms. There were no changes in SEP latencies. Our results indicate that significant time-dependent interactions between sensory volleys occur at the subcortical level. These observations provide further insight into the physiological mechanisms underlying afferent gating between sensory volleys of different modality.

show abstract

Section: Muscle Afferents Activated By Mechanical Tendon Tapsmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Muscle Afferents Activated By Mechanical Tendon Tapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Muscle Afferents Activated By Mechanical Tendon Tapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Muscle Afferents Activated By Mechanical Tendon Tapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Subcortical Interactions Between Somatosensory Stimuli of Different Modalities and Their Temporal Profile

Costa¹,

Valls‐Solé²,

Valldeoriola³

et al. 2008

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We therefore studied the effects of vibration and contraction on different types of somatosensory afferent input (mixed nerve, muscle spindles, cutaneous nerve, and cutaneous receptors) by recording evoked potentials over peripheral nerve, spinal cord, and cerebral cortex to electrical stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve (Ia fibers 11 ), to tendon taps (muscle spindles 12 ), to mechanical taps to the skin (cutaneous mechanoreceptors 13 ), and to electrical stimulation of the sural nerve (cutaneous afferent fibers 14 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vibration and muscle contraction affect somatosensory evoked potentials

Cohen¹,

Starr²

1985

Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article abstract-We recorded potentials evoked by specific somatosensory stimuli over peripheral nerve, spinal cord, and cerebral cortex. Vibration attenuated spinal and cerebral potentials evoked by mixed nerve and muscle spindle stimulation; in one subject that was tested, there was no effect on cutaneous input. Presynaptic inhibition ofla input in the spinal cord and muscle spindle receptor occupancy are probably the responsible mechanisms. In contrast, muscle contraction attenuated cerebral potentials to both cutaneous and muscle spindle afferent volleys; central mechanisms modulating neurons in the dorsal columns nuclei, thalamus, or cerebral cortex are probably responsible.

show abstract

Magnetic stimulation of muscle evokes cerebral potentials

Zhu

Starr

1991

Muscle and Nerve

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) were recorded from the scalp in man to magnetic stimulation of various skeletal muscles. The potentials consisted of several components, the earliest of which decreased in latency as the stimulated site moved rostrally, ranging from 46 msec for stimulation of the gastrocnemius, to 14 msec for stimulation of the deltoid. Experiments were performed to distinguish the mechanisms by which magnetic stimulation of the muscle was effective in evoking these cerebral potentials. For the gastrocnemius, the intensity of the magnetic stimulus needed for evoking cerebral potentials was less than that required for activating mixed or sensory nerves in proximity to the muscle belly (eg, posterior tibia1 nerve in the popliteal fossa, sural nerve at the ankle). Vibration of the muscle or passive lengthening of the muscle, procedures which activate muscle spindles, were accompanied by a significant attenuation of the potentials evoked by magnetic stimulation of the muscle. Anesthesia of the skin underlying the stimulating coil had no effect on the latency or amplitude of the early components of the magnetically evoked potentials, whereas electrically evoked potentials from skin electrodes were abolished. Thus, the cerebral potentials accompanying magnetic stimulation of the muscle appear to be due to activation of muscle afferents. We suggest that magnetic stimulation of muscle can provide a relatively simple method for quantifying the function of muscle afferents originating from a wide variety of skeletal musculature

show abstract

Cerebral Somatosensory Potentials Evoked by Muscle Stretch, Cutaneous Taps and Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves in the Lower Limbs in Man

Cited by 58 publications

References 16 publications

Subcortical Interactions Between Somatosensory Stimuli of Different Modalities and Their Temporal Profile

Subcortical Interactions Between Somatosensory Stimuli of Different Modalities and Their Temporal Profile

Vibration and muscle contraction affect somatosensory evoked potentials

Magnetic stimulation of muscle evokes cerebral potentials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About