2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2020.11.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional organization of the human primary somatosensory cortex: A stereo-electroencephalography study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The remainder generally involved broad effects on one side of the face that gradually encroached across the midline to affect part of the other side, most often the upper or lower lip ( Figure 2 b). At present, the layout of the human facial region in SI remains poorly understood, especially the representation of the skin surface [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ]. Penfield described ipsilateral/bilateral representation of some oral structures [ 19 ], and in non-human primates, there is substantial evidence for a bilateral map of oral structures in SI.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The remainder generally involved broad effects on one side of the face that gradually encroached across the midline to affect part of the other side, most often the upper or lower lip ( Figure 2 b). At present, the layout of the human facial region in SI remains poorly understood, especially the representation of the skin surface [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ]. Penfield described ipsilateral/bilateral representation of some oral structures [ 19 ], and in non-human primates, there is substantial evidence for a bilateral map of oral structures in SI.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrary to its motor counterpart, the primary somatosensory cortex (hereafter S1) is considered highly topographically organized, with relatively high levels of selectivity within each body part’s representation ( Schieber, 2001 ; Cunningham et al., 2013 ; Huber et al., 2020 ). This perspective over S1 organization arises from a long-lasting mapping tradition, initiated in the 19 th century ( Fritsch and Hitzig, 1870 ; Ferrier, 1873 ; Penfield and Boldrey, 1937 ) and continued since then in electrophysiology ( Merzenich et al., 1978 ; Kaas et al., 1979 ; Baldwin et al., 2017 ), cortical stimulation ( Roux et al., 2018 ; Sun et al., 2021 ), and neuroimaging studies ( Nakamura et al., 1998 ; Germann et al., 2020 ; Saadon-Grosman et al., 2020 ; Willoughby et al., 2021 ). This conventional mapping approach assigns brain function to a given cortical area by selecting the most responsive body part for a set of neurons or voxels in a winner-takes-all manner.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, however, electrical stimulation for eliciting SEPs was applied to a different limb from the one with the contracted muscles. The afferent inputs by electrical stimulation and the somatosensory information generated by muscle contractions were sent to distinct areas of the somatosensory cortex, in accordance with the somatotopic organization (Sun et al, 2021). Therefore, it is less likely that the SEP attenuation of the P50‐N70 component resulted from the interference of sensory inputs in the cortical and/or subcortical sites.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%