Contralateral and ipsilateral responses in primary somatosensory cortex following electrical median nerve stimulation—an fMRI study

Nishizaki, Takashi; Naganawa, Shinji; Sato, Chiho; Kawai, Hisashi; Nakamura, Tatsuya; Fukatsu, Hiroshi; Ishigaki, Takeo; Aoki, Ikuo

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2004.10.011

Cited by 94 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The above-described modulatory effect of ipsilateral input on the SI response to stimulation of the contralateral hand, together with (1) reports by others of neurons with ipsilateral receptive fields in SI of nonhuman primates (for review, see Iwamura et al, 2002), (2) demonstrations of short-latency activation of human SI in response to electrical stimulation of the ipsilateral median nerve (Allison et al, 1989a(Allison et al, ,b, 1992Korvenoja et al, 1995;Nihashi et al, 2005), and (3) the recent discovery that unilaterally applied flutter stimulation of the hand evokes short-latency neuromagnetic activity in both the contralateral and ipsilateral SI of conscious humans (Tan et al, 2004), demonstrates not only that the SI hand representational region receives substantial ipsilateral input but, in addition, shows that ipsilateral input evoked by gentle mechanical skin stimulation can alter the SI response to contralateral flutter stimulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Additionally, imaging and neurophysiological studies (in monkeys, Iwamura et al, 2001;Lipton et al, 2006;in humans, Allison et al, 1989a,b;Korvenoja et al, 1995;Nihashi et al, 2005;Hlushchuk et al, 2006) described modifications of SI (area 3b) activity in response to input evoked by either mechanical stimulation of an ipsilateral skin site or electrical stimulation of an ipsilateral peripheral nerve. Human investigations have shown that ipsilateral input can modify the SI response to a subsequent contralateral stimulus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ipsilateral Input Modifies the Primary Somatosensory Cortex Response to Contralateral Skin Flutter

Tommerdahl

Simons²,

Chiu³

et al. 2006

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We recorded the optical intrinsic signal response of squirrel monkey primary somatosensory cortex (SI) to 25 Hz vibrotactile ("flutter") stimulation applied independently to the thenar eminence on each hand and also to bilateral (simultaneous) stimulation of both thenars. The following observations were obtained in every subject (n ϭ 5). (1) Ipsilateral stimulation was accompanied by an increase in absorbance within the SI hand region substantially smaller than the absorbance increase evoked by contralateral stimulation. (2) The absorbance increase evoked by simultaneous bilateral stimulation was smaller (by ϳ30%) than that evoked by contralateral stimulation. (3) The spatiointensive pattern of the SI response to bilateral flutter was distinctly different than the pattern that accompanied contralateral flutter stimulation: with contralateral flutter, the center of the responding region of SI underwent a large increase in absorbance, whereas absorbance decreased in the surrounding region; in contrast, during bilateral flutter, absorbance decreased (relative to that evoked by contralateral flutter) in the central region of SI but increased in the surround. The results raise the possibility that somatosensory perceptual experiences specific to bimanual tactile object exploration derive, at least in part, from the unique spatiointensive activity pattern evoked in SI when the stimulus makes contact with both hands. It is suggested that modulatory influences evoked by ipsilateral thenar flutter stimulation reach SI via a two-stage pathway involving interhemispheric (callosal) connections between information processing levels higher than SI and subsequently via intrahemispheric (corticocortical) projections to the SI hand region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ipsilateral Input Modifies the Primary Somatosensory Cortex Response to Contralateral Skin Flutter

Tommerdahl

Simons²,

Chiu³

et al. 2006

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of sensorimotor cortical activation following innocuous stimulation have reported both unilateral (Hoshiyama et al 1997;Suzuki et al 2004) as well as bilateral SI activation (Jantsch et al 2005;Nihashi et al 2005;Sutherland and Tang 2006). Furthermore, some studies indicate bilateral activation with a prominent component contralateral to the stimulus (Hansson and Brismar 1999;Franceschini et al 2003) while others have found inhibition of ipsilateral activation (Hlushchuk and Hari, 2006).…”

Section: Activation In the Somatosensory Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Taken together, these results seem to indicate that contralateral activation is routinely detected while concomitant ipsilateral is not sought, is activated at a lower level, or even suppressed. Several of these were carried out with electrical stimulation of a main nerve (Hoshiyama et al 1997;Suzuki et al 2004;Nihashi et al 2005;Sutherland and Tang 2006). As a result, multiple fiber subtypes (innocuous and noxious specific subtypes) are stimulated and the observed responses may include nociceptive-related activation.…”

Section: Activation In the Somatosensory Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diffuse optical tomography of pain and tactile stimulation: Activation in cortical sensory and emotional systems

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using Diffuse Optical Tomography (DOT) we detected activation in the somatosensory cortex and frontal brain areas following tactile (brush) and noxious heat stimulation. Healthy volunteers received stimulation to the dorsum of the right hand. In the somatosensory cortex area, tactile stimulation produced a robust, contralateral to the stimulus, hemodynamic response with a weaker activation on the ipsilateral side. For the same region, noxious thermal stimuli produced bilateral activation of similar intensity that had a prolonged activation with a two-peak similar to results have been reported with functional MRI. Bilateral activation was observed in the frontal areas, oxyhemoglobin changes were positive for brush stimulation while they were initially negative (contralateral) for heat stimulation. These results suggest that based on the temporal and spatial characteristics of the response in the sensory cortex, it is possible to discern painful from mechanical stimulation using DOT. Such ability might have potential applications in a clinical setting in which pain needs to be assessed objectively (e.g. analgesic efficacy, pain responses during surgery).

show abstract

“…The great density of mechanoreceptors in the hand (Johansson and Vallbo 1983) as well as the greater specificity in afferent innervation of motoneurons for hand muscles (Illert and Kummel 1999) make the fingers innately have greater peripheral feedback than the proximal muscles. Furthermore, accumulated data have demonstrated that afferent inputs from one hand ascend to both ipsilateral and contralateral somatosensory cortices (Wegner et al 2000;Simoes et al 2002;Nihashi et al 2005;Blatow et al 2007). As such, tactile stimuli applied to fingertips in one hand are reported to be identified and localized in the contralateral corresponding fingertips (Braun et al 2005).…”

Section: Absolute Finger Force Matching In Ipsilateral and Contralatementioning

confidence: 99%

Finger force perception during ipsilateral and contralateral force matching tasks

Park

Leonard

2008

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of the present study were to compare matching performance between ipsilateral and contralateral finger force matching tasks and to examine the effect of handedness on finger force perception. Eleven subjects were instructed to produce reference forces by an instructed finger (index -I or little -L finger) and to reproduce the same amount force by the same or a different finger within the hand (i.e., ipsilateral matching task), or by a finger of the other hand (i.e., contralateral matching task). The results of the ipsilateral and contralateral tasks in the present study commonly showed that 1) the reference and matching forces were matched closely when the two forces were produced by the same or homologous finger(s) such as I/I task; 2) the weaker little finger underestimated the magnitude of reference force of the index finger (I/L task), even with the higher level of effort (relative force), but the two forces were matched when considering total finger forces; 3) the stronger index finger closely matched the reference force of the little finger with the lower level of relative force (i.e., L/I task); 4) when considering the constant errors, I/L tasks showed an underestimation and L/I tasks showed an overestimation compared to I/I tasks. There was no handedness effect during ipsilateral tasks. During the contralateral task, the dominant hand overestimated the force of the non-dominant hand, while the non-dominant hand attempted to match the absolute force of the dominant hand. The overall results support the notion that the absolute, rather than relative, finger force is perceived and reproduced during ipsilateral and contralateral finger force matching tasks, indicating the uniqueness of finger force perception.

show abstract

Contralateral and ipsilateral responses in primary somatosensory cortex following electrical median nerve stimulation—an fMRI study

Cited by 94 publications

References 30 publications

Ipsilateral Input Modifies the Primary Somatosensory Cortex Response to Contralateral Skin Flutter

Ipsilateral Input Modifies the Primary Somatosensory Cortex Response to Contralateral Skin Flutter

Diffuse optical tomography of pain and tactile stimulation: Activation in cortical sensory and emotional systems

Finger force perception during ipsilateral and contralateral force matching tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About