1953
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1953.sp005007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of proprioception on map of cortical responses

Abstract: Many investigators have prepared maps of motor cortex responses to stimulation at different sites, but hitherto none has attempted to demonstrate the alterations that occur in cortical maps when the peripheral conditions (such as the initial position of the responding limb) are altered. That this position may alter the response to stimulation of a particular cortical site has been demonstrated by Gelihorn (1948Gelihorn ( , 1949 and Gelihorn & Johnson (1950a); the influence of proprioceptive conditions on a map… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

1954
1954
1997
1997

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The adult-trimmed group displayed some similar changes, although of much lesser magnitude, consistent with previous conclusions that mature M1 representations retain a capacity for functional modification under the influence of changing sensory feedback (Gellhorn and Hyde, 1953;Sanes et al, 1992). The basis for such effects could be long-term changes in synapse number as a result of altered experience (K leim et al, 1996) or changes in synaptic efficacies of preexisting connections (Diamond et al, 1993;Donoghue et al, 1996) through long-term, activitydependent changes in neurochemical levels.…”
Section: Possible Mechanismssupporting
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The adult-trimmed group displayed some similar changes, although of much lesser magnitude, consistent with previous conclusions that mature M1 representations retain a capacity for functional modification under the influence of changing sensory feedback (Gellhorn and Hyde, 1953;Sanes et al, 1992). The basis for such effects could be long-term changes in synapse number as a result of altered experience (K leim et al, 1996) or changes in synaptic efficacies of preexisting connections (Diamond et al, 1993;Donoghue et al, 1996) through long-term, activitydependent changes in neurochemical levels.…”
Section: Possible Mechanismssupporting
confidence: 77%
“…The functional properties of M1 neurons are strongly influenced by somatosensory feedback (Lemon and Porter, 1976;Zarzecki, 1989), and stimulation-evoked output from M1 can change on readjustments of limb position, a manipulation that presumably changes proprioceptive feedback (Gellhorn and Hyde, 1953;Sanes et al, 1992). Corresponding parts of representational maps in S1 and M1 are topographically linked by dense corticocortical connections (Jones et al, 1978;Izraeli and Porter, 1995); such connectivity is critical for learning new motor skills (Pavlides et al, 1993) and can display activity-dependent changes in functional efficacy (Sakamoto et al, 1987).…”
Section: Abstract: Motor Cortex; Rat; Vibrissa; Plasticity; Developmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A further discussion of the phasic fluctua¬ tion of the amplitude of the monosynaptic response will be postponed until after the presentation of the different mapping experiments. In this connection, it should only be pointed out that from the experiments described a stimulus frequency of 20 to 25 per second is most convenient for the mapping experiments because these stimulation frequencies are the most effective for the building up of the monosynap¬ tic response, as shown by the short latency and high amplitude of the first phase of 15,17,20,25,30, and 35 per second) plotted against time from the beginning of the repetitive cortical stimulation. The amplitude values are given in per cent of the highest value obtained (100% in curve with a frequency of 25 per second).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…p ro duce selectiv e ty p e s of fa c ilita tio n in m uscles w hich are fu n c tio n a lly a sso c ia te d w ith th e s tre tc h e d m uscle [9,13]. T he fa c ilita to ry actio n of th e se p ro p rio c e p tiv e im p u lses is fu rth e r illu s tra te d b y th e fa c t t h a t th e c o rtic a l a re a fro m w hich th e c o n tra c tio n of a m uscle can be elicited b y a given stim u lu s is in creased if th a t m uscle is s tre tc h e d a n d fix a te d [12]. I t is, th e re fo re , n o t su rp risin g t h a t th e A -m o v em en t o f th e le ft a rm th r o u g h its p ro p rio c e p tiv e a c tiv ity e x e rts a facilitato r y in flu en ce on th e n e u ro n s w h ich in n e rv a te th e fingers of th e left h a n d .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…
T h a t v o lu n ta ry , skilled m o v e m en ts in th e ir enorm ous v a rie ty a n d a d a p ta b ility are th e re su lt of sen so ri-m o to r in te g ra tio n has been stre sse d b y n u m e ro u s a u th o rs [9,12,19,21,26,28]. T he chief re a sons a re : 1.
…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%