Early frequency-dependent information processing and cortical control in the whisker pathway of the rat: Electrophysiological study of brainstem nuclei principalis and interpolaris

Sánchez‐Jiménez, Abel; Panetsos, Fivos; Murciano, Antonio

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.01.075

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though a few studies show that paired whisker stimulation can evoke facilitation (Shimegi et al, 1999, 2000; Ego-Stengel et al, 2005; Hirata and Castro-Alamancos, 2008), the preponderance of studies show that co-stimulation or stimulation of one whisker followed by the other, suppresses responses to the surround or second whisker. The cortical response to repeated deflections of a single whisker is suppressed when the interval between deflections is shorter than 100 ms (Fanselow and Nicolelis, 1999; Chung et al, 2002; Arabzadeh et al, 2003; Garabedian et al, 2003; Melzer et al, 2006; Drew and Feldman, 2007; Khatri and Simons, 2007; Sanchez-Jimenez et al, 2009; Boloori et al, 2010; Stuttgen and Schwarz, 2010). Similarly, whisker deflection attenuates the response to a second whisker for a period of 10–200 ms, with maximal suppression at 20 ms (Simons, 1985; Simons and Carvell, 1989; Brumberg et al, 1996; Kleinfeld and Delaney, 1996; Mirabella et al, 2001; Higley and Contreras, 2003; Ego-Stengel et al, 2005; Higley and Contreras, 2005; Boloori and Stanley, 2006; Webber and Stanley, 2006; Drew and Feldman, 2007; Higley and Contreras, 2007).…”

Section: Surround Suppression In Whisker To Barrel Cortexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surround suppression and sparse coding in visual and barrel cortices

Sachdev¹,

Krause²,

Mazer³

2012

Front. Neural Circuits

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During natural vision the entire retina is stimulated. Likewise, during natural tactile behaviors, spatially extensive regions of the somatosensory surface are co-activated. The large spatial extent of naturalistic stimulation means that surround suppression, a phenomenon whose neural mechanisms remain a matter of debate, must arise during natural behavior. To identify common neural motifs that might instantiate surround suppression across modalities, we review models of surround suppression and compare the evidence supporting the competing ideas that surround suppression has either cortical or sub-cortical origins in visual and barrel cortex. In the visual system there is general agreement lateral inhibitory mechanisms contribute to surround suppression, but little direct experimental evidence that intracortical inhibition plays a major role. Two intracellular recording studies of V1, one using naturalistic stimuli (Haider et al., 2010), the other sinusoidal gratings (Ozeki et al., 2009), sought to identify the causes of reduced activity in V1 with increasing stimulus size, a hallmark of surround suppression. The former attributed this effect to increased inhibition, the latter to largely balanced withdrawal of excitation and inhibition. In rodent primary somatosensory barrel cortex, multi-whisker responses are generally weaker than single whisker responses, suggesting multi-whisker stimulation engages similar surround suppressive mechanisms. The origins of suppression in S1 remain elusive: studies have implicated brainstem lateral/internuclear interactions and both thalamic and cortical inhibition. Although the anatomical organization and instantiation of surround suppression in the visual and somatosensory systems differ, we consider the idea that one common function of surround suppression, in both modalities, is to remove the statistical redundancies associated with natural stimuli by increasing the sparseness or selectivity of sensory responses.

show abstract

Section: Surround Suppression In Whisker To Barrel Cortexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surround suppression and sparse coding in visual and barrel cortices

Sachdev¹,

Krause²,

Mazer³

2012

Front. Neural Circuits

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data were obtained from 52 urethane-anesthetized (1.5 g/kg i.p.) adult albino Wistar rats of either sex weighing 280–320 g. Experimental procedures are detailed in Sanchez-Jimenez et al (2009). A brief description of the preparation, stimulation, recording and data analysis is detailed below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once the principal vibrissa was identified, spontaneous activity was recorded for 180 s and then the 1–40 Hz stimulation protocol was followed: 5 s long trains of 14 ms-long air-puffs at 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 Hz were presented 10 times in a random order with a 3 s interval between trains (Garabedian et al, 2003; Sanchez-Jimenez et al, 2009). Experiments terminated with a final sequence of 50 pulses of 100 ms at 1 Hz.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary processing of haptic information by slowly and rapidly adapting neurons in the trigeminothalamic pathway. Electrophysiology, mathematical modeling and simulations of vibrissae-related neurons

Sánchez‐Jiménez

Torets

Panetsos

2013

Front. Cell. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tonic (slowly adapting) and phasic (rapidly adapting) primary afferents convey complementary aspects of haptic information to the central nervous system: object location and texture the former, shape the latter. Tonic and phasic neural responses are also recorded in all relay stations of the somatosensory pathway, yet it is unknown their role in both, information processing and information transmission to the cortex: we don't know if tonic and phasic neurons process complementary aspects of haptic information and/or if these two types constitute two separate channels that convey complementary aspects of tactile information to the cortex. Here we propose to elucidate these two questions in the fast trigeminal pathway of the rat (PrV-VPM: principal trigeminal nucleus-ventroposteromedial thalamic nucleus). We analyze early and global behavior, latencies and stability of the responses of individual cells in PrV and medial lemniscus under 1–40 Hz stimulation of the whiskers in control and decorticated animals and we use stochastic spiking models and extensive simulations. Our results strongly suggest that in the first relay station of the somatosensory system (PrV): (1) tonic and phasic neurons process complementary aspects of whisker-related tactile information (2) tonic and phasic responses are not originated from two different types of neurons (3) the two responses are generated by the differential action of the somatosensory cortex on a unique type of PrV cell (4) tonic and phasic neurons do not belong to two different channels for the transmission of tactile information to the thalamus (5) trigeminothalamic transmission is exclusively performed by tonically firing neurons and (6) all aspects of haptic information are coded into low-pass, band-pass, and high-pass filtering profiles of tonically firing neurons. Our results are important for both, basic research on neural circuits and information processing, and development of sensory neuroprostheses.

show abstract

“…The PrV cells receive other inputs in addition to the ION central axons, such as excitatory and inhibitory inputs from caudal brainstem trigeminal nuclei (Furuta et al, 2008; Martin et al, 2014), serotonergic raphe (Lee et al, 2008; Kirifides et al, 2001) and noradrenalinergic locus coeruleus afferents (Simpson et al, 1997, 1999) and corticotrigeminal inputs from the somatosensory cortex (Malmierca et al, 2014; Sanchez-Jimenez et al, 2009, 2013). …”

Section: Development and Organization Of The Rodent Trigeminal Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neonatal sensory nerve injury-induced synaptic plasticity in the trigeminal principal sensory nucleus

Erzurumlu

2016

Experimental Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensory deprivation studies in neonatal mammals, such as monocular eye closure, whisker trimming, chemical blockade of the olfactory epithelium have revealed the importance of sensory inputs in brain wiring during distinct critical periods. But very few studies have paid attention to the effects of neonatal peripheral sensory nerve damage on synaptic wiring of the central nervous system (CNS) circuits. Peripheral somatosensory nerves differ from other special sensory afferents in that they are more prone to crush or severance because of their locations in the body. Unlike the visual and auditory afferents, these nerves show regenerative capabilities after damage. Uniquely, damage to a somatosensory peripheral nerve does not only block activity incoming from the sensory receptors but also mediates injury-induced neuro- and glial chemical signals to the brain through the uninjured central axons of the primary sensory neurons. These chemical signals can have both far more and longer lasting effects than sensory blockade alone. Here we review studies which focus on the consequences of neonatal peripheral sensory nerve damage in the principal sensory nucleus of the brainstem trigeminal complex.

show abstract

Early frequency-dependent information processing and cortical control in the whisker pathway of the rat: Electrophysiological study of brainstem nuclei principalis and interpolaris

Cited by 15 publications

References 61 publications

Surround suppression and sparse coding in visual and barrel cortices

Surround suppression and sparse coding in visual and barrel cortices

Complementary processing of haptic information by slowly and rapidly adapting neurons in the trigeminothalamic pathway. Electrophysiology, mathematical modeling and simulations of vibrissae-related neurons

Neonatal sensory nerve injury-induced synaptic plasticity in the trigeminal principal sensory nucleus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About