Responses of vibration‐sensitive receptors in the interosseous region of the duck's hind limb

Dorward, Patricia K.; McIntyre, A. K.

doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1971.sp009650

Cited by 56 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Skoglund 1960;Dorward and McIntyre 1971;Gregory 1973;Gottschaldt and Lausmann 1974;Gottschaldt et al 1982;Hörster et al 1983;Shen 1985;Hörster 1990;Shen and Xu 1994). Initially, no attention was payed to the functional significance of particular structural components of Herbst corpuscles.…”

Section: Relation Of Structure To Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As regards function, both Herbst and Pacinian corpuscles monitor transient mechanical stimuli, especially vibrations (Dorward and McIntyre 1971;Gottschaldt 1974;Gottschaldt et al1982;Hörster 1990). Their biological significance is still a matter of conjecture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Especially large, though variable numbers of Herbst corpuscles were found arrayed in a string in the crural region of birds of various species (Herbst 1848;Schildmacher 1931;Dorward and McIntyre 1971;Hörster et al 1983;Shen 1985;Shen and Xu 1994). In the chicken and quail, however, exact numbers of crural corpuscles have not yet been established.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Crural Herbst corpuscles in chicken and quail: numbers and structure

Zelená

Halata

Szeder

et al. 1997

Anatomy and Embryology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbst corpuscles were studied in the crural region of perinatal and adult chicken and quail in order to find out their number and dimensions and to learn more about their structure, especially in relation to size. Crural corpuscles are arrayed in an encapsulated string between tibia and fibula. They are closely packed together; a small number of corpuscles is found apart from the string, often attached to the periost. The strings of corpuscles are approximately 40 mm long in adult chicken and 20 mm long in the quail. The crural region of the chicken contains 382.8 +/- 90.9 (mean +/- SD) corpuscles, the numbers ranging from 301 to 582; in the quail, the mean number is 119.2 +/- 27.9, with a range from 83 to 167 corpuscles. In the chicken, one axon supplies an average of 1.60 corpuscles; in the quail, the relation of axons to corpuscles is approximately 0.92. In both species, final numbers of crural corpuscles are already attained before hatching and no difference is found in the mean number and range of corpuscles between perinatal and adult birds. In both chicken and quail, individual strings contain corpuscles of various sizes, from large to very small. The chicken corpuscles are generally twice as large in diameter and often longer than those of the quail. The corpuscles are composed of an axon terminal that projects two rows of axonal spines into the clefts of the inner core and ends with an ultraterminal bulb; the terminal is surrounded with a bilaterally symmetrical inner core, amorphous inner space containing collagen fibrils of various thickness, and a capsule. Large chicken corpuscles contain inner cores composed of up to 100 lamellae, while quail inner cores have half that number at the most. The capsules are usually composed of 8 to 10 lamellar layers in both species, but they are thicker in the chicken than in the quail. The possible functional significance of individual structural components of Herbst corpuscles is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Relation Of Structure To Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crural Herbst corpuscles in chicken and quail: numbers and structure

Zelená

Halata

Szeder

et al. 1997

Anatomy and Embryology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, although these sensors are present in reptiles, both in the body walls of snakes (Proske, 1969a) and in the limbs of lizards (McIntyre, 1975), and are also present in birds (McIntyre, 1980), there does not appear to be a common receptor type involved. First, the vibration sensors in the body wall of the snake may be unencapsulated (Proske, 1969b;McIntyre, 1980), whereas those in birds appear to be associated with the Herbst corpuscles, which are much smaller than Pacinian corpuscles and have fewer lamellae (Dorward and McIntyre, 1971;McIntyre, 1980). However, the earlier finding of Pacinian corpuscle-like receptors in the snout of the echidna (Andres et al, 1991;Iggo et al, 1996) tends to suggest that the high-frequency, vibrationsensitive units in the echidna forepaw may well be associated with Pacinian-like receptors.…”

Section: Comparative and Evolutionary Aspects Of Tactile Sensory Fibementioning

confidence: 85%

Tactile sensory function in the forearm of the monotreme Tachyglossus aculeatus

Mahns

Coleman

Ashwell

et al. 2003

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peripheral tactile neural mechanisms in the forepaw of the echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus, from the order Monotremata) were investigated to establish the extent of correspondence or divergence that has emerged over the widely different evolutionary paths taken by monotreme and placental mammals. Electrophysiological recordings were made in anesthetized echidnas from 29 single tactile sensory nerve fibers isolated in fine strands of the median or ulnar nerves of the forearm. Controlled tactile stimuli were applied to the forepaw glabrous skin to classify fibers, initially, into two broad divisions, according to their responses to static skin displacement. One displayed slowly adapting (SA) response properties, and the other showed a selective sensitivity to the dynamic components of the skin displacement. The SA class was made up of low-threshold SA fibers and other less sensitive SA fibers, and the purely dynamically sensitive tactile fibers could be subdivided according to vibrotactile sensitivity and receptive field characteristics into a rapidly adapting (RA) class, sensitive to low-frequency (< or =50-Hz) vibration, that resembled a corresponding RA class in placental species, and another class, sensitive to a broader range of vibrotactile frequencies (approximately 50-300 Hz), that may represent a monotreme equivalent of the Pacinian corpuscle (PC)-related fiber class of placental mammals. The differential tactile sensitivity of the three principal fiber classes and their individual coding characteristics, determined by quantitative stimulus-response analysis, indicate, first, that this triad of fiber classes can subserve high-acuity tactile signalling from the echidna footpad and, second, that peripheral tactile sensory mechanisms are highly conserved across evolutionarily divergent mammalian orders.

show abstract

“…A curious feature of the responses which deserves further attention in the future is that the optimal frequency of 150-250 Hz appears to be rather lower than that of other mammalian vibration receptors (Hunt, 1961), avian receptors (Dorward & McIntyre, 1971) and reptilian receptors (Proske, 1969). However, it is of interest that vibration receptors from the interosseus region of the hindlimb of the kangaroo were less 364 PLATYPUS BILL RECEPTORS rapidly adapting than Pacinian corpuscles of other mammals (Gregory, McIntyre & Proske, 1986).…”

Section: Mechanoreceptor8mentioning

confidence: 97%

Receptors in the bill of the platypus.

Gregory

Iggo

McIntyre

et al. 1988

The Journal of Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY1. Afferent responses were recorded from filaments of the trigeminal nerve in each of two platypuses (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) anaesthetized with a-chloralose. All receptive fields were located along the lateral border of the upper bill. Discrete receptive fields could be identified as belonging to two distinct classes of sensory receptor.2. The most prominent response was an irregular resting discharge which could be increased or decreased by weak electric pulses. These receptors were insensitive to moderately strong mechanical stimulation, and it was concluded that they were electroreceptors.3. Each electroreceptor had a single spot of maximum sensitivity on the bill surface. When the stimulating electrode over this spot was the cathode it excited the receptor for the duration of the stimulating pulse, using stimulus strengths as low as 20 mV. When it was the anode, it inhibited the discharge. Cathodal excitation was followed by rebound inhibition and anodal inhibition by rebound excitation.4. Receptors responded to cathodal steps with an initial high-frequency burst of impulses, followed by a lower maintained rate of discharge. Rapidly changing pulses were similarly effective in exciting receptors, adding support to the claim that platypuses are able to detect moving-prey by the electrical activity associated with muscle contraction.5. The centres of the receptive fields of two electroreceptors were marked by the insertion of fine entomological pins. Histological examination established the presence of a large mucus-secreting gland at the marked spot. The epidermal duct of the gland contained an elaborate myelinated innervation, with morphologically distinct axon terminals that we identify as the electroreceptors.6. As well as electroreceptors, the skin of the bill contained three kinds of mechanoreceptors: slow-adapting receptors, rapidly adapting, vibration-sensitive receptors and receptors with an intermediate adaptation rate. The slowly adapting receptors were characterized by their low threshold to mechanical stimuli, irregular discharge and significant dynamic sensitivity. Vibration receptors showed maintained responses to sinusoidal vibration of the skin up to 600 Hz. 7. These experiments confirm an earlier report that the platypus bill is an electrodetector organ. The presence of electroreceptors of a unique structure and J. E. GREGORY AND OTHERS supplied by the trigeminal nerve indicates that electroreception has evolved independently in monotremes. This in turn emphasizes that monotremes are a highly evolved group which split off from the main mammalian stem a long time ago.

show abstract

Responses of vibration‐sensitive receptors in the interosseous region of the duck's hind limb

Cited by 56 publications

References 14 publications

Crural Herbst corpuscles in chicken and quail: numbers and structure

Crural Herbst corpuscles in chicken and quail: numbers and structure

Tactile sensory function in the forearm of the monotreme Tachyglossus aculeatus

Receptors in the bill of the platypus.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About