Neural Mechanisms of Mandibular Control: Mastication and Voluntary Biting

Luschei, Erich S.; Goldberg, Louis J.

doi:10.1002/cphy.cp010227

Cited by 130 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 204 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to making monosynaptic connections on trigeminal motoneurons, the central processes of the Vmes neurons contact numerous central targets (reviewed by Capra and Dessem [7]). The afferents supplying intrafusal fibers in jaw muscles are smaller in diameter than their spinal counterpart [8] and their conduction velocities are unimodally distributed.…”

Section: Jaw Muscle Spindles: Morphological and Functional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 97%

The influence of pain on masseter spindle afferent discharge

Capra¹,

Hisley²,

Masri³

2007

Archives of Oral Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryMuscle spindles provide proprioceptive feedback supporting normal patterns of motor activity and kinesthetic sensibility. During mastication, jaw muscle spindles play an important role in monitoring and regulating the chewing cycle and the bite forces generated during mastication. Both acute and chronic orofacial pain disorders are associated with changes in proprioceptive feedback and motor function. Experimental jaw muscle pain also alters the normal response of masseter spindle afferents to ramp and hold jaw movements [1]. It has been proposed that altered motor function and proprioceptive input results from group III muscle afferent modulation of the fusimotor system which alters spindle afferent sensitivity in limb muscles [2]. The response to nociceptive stimuli may enhance or reduce the response of spindle afferents to proprioceptive stimuli. Several experimental observations suggesting the possibility that a similar mechanism also functions in jaw muscles are presented in this report. First, evidence is provided to show that nociceptive stimulation of the masseter muscle primarily influences the amplitude sensitivity of spindle afferents with relatively little effect on the dynamic sensitivity [3]. Second, reversible inactivation of the caudal trigeminal nuclei attenuates the nociceptive modulation of spindle afferents. Finally, functionally identified gamma-motoneurons in the trigeminal motor nucleus are modulated by intramuscular injection with algesic substances. Taken together, these results suggest that pain-induced modulation of spindle afferent responses are mediated by small diameter muscle afferents and that this modulation is dependent, in part, on the relay of muscle nociceptive information from trigeminal subnucleus caudalis onto trigeminal gamma-motoneurons. The implication of these results will be considered in light of current theories on the relationship between jaw muscle pain and oral motor function.

show abstract

Section: Jaw Muscle Spindles: Morphological and Functional Differencesmentioning

confidence: 97%

The influence of pain on masseter spindle afferent discharge

Capra¹,

Hisley²,

Masri³

2007

Archives of Oral Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One very attractive conceptualization of early speech movements is as a series of vocalizations, perhaps involving the organization of the respiratory, articulatory, and phonatory systems, mediated by the periaqueductal gray (Larson, 1985), superimposed on the rhythmic opening and closing (i.e., valving) of the vocal tract (Kent et al, 1991), perhaps generated by a masticatory central pattern generator. The parallels of the vocant-closant-vocant phonetic structure of early speech (Kent & Bauer, 1985;Kent & Murray, 1982) with these comparatively well understood behaviors (e.g., Lund, 1991;Luschei, 1991;Luschei & Goldberg, 1981;Luschei & Goodwin, 1974;Møller, 1966) are inescapable and promote the representation of speech development as a process of refinement of these gestures. Davis and MacNeilage (1995) focus attention explicitly on mandibular movement noting that "close and open phases of the (babbling) cycle often may have no associated neuromuscular activity other than movement of the mandible" (p. 1200).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Speech Emerge From Earlier Appearing Oral Motor Behaviors?

Moore

Ruark

1996

J Speech Lang Hear Res

105

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This investigation was designed to quantify the coordinative organization of mandibular muscles in toddlers during speech and nonspeech behaviors. Seven 15-month-olds were observed during spontaneous production of chewing, sucking, babbling, and speech. Comparison of mandibular coordination across these behaviors revealed that, even for children in the earliest stages of true word production, coordination was quite different from that observed for other behaviors. Production of true words was predominantly characterized by relatively stronger coupling among all mandibular muscles compared with earlier-emerging chewing and sucking. Variegated babbling exhibited stronger coupling than reduplicated babbling, as well as chewing and sucking. The finding of coupled activation among mandibular antagonists during speech paralleled earlier comparisons of adult speech and nonspeech behaviors (Moore, Smith, & Ringel, 1988) and did not support the suggestion that speech coordination emerges from earlier appearing oral motor behaviors. Keywordsspeech; development; motor control; mandible; human A persistent question in our understanding of the coordinative framework of speech production is the relationship of speech to other oral motor behaviors (Moore, Smith, & Ringel, 1988;Ostry, Feltham, & Munhall, 1984;Ostry & Munhall, 1994). Although recent investigations have provided strong support for the existence of separate and distinct mechanisms for speech and nonspeech coordination in adults (Moore et al., 1988), empirical physiologic studies of speech development are lacking. This lack of evidence leaves in doubt the essential foundations of speech motor control.Two lines of reasoning can be taken to address the coordinative framework of speech during the early stages of development. The first draws on mechanisms of pattern generation, which have been directly observed in animals (see Grillner, 1981), as well as dynamical systems theory (e.g., Fentress, 1976;Kent & Hodge, 1990;Thelen & Cooke, 1987;Thelen & Fisher, 1983;Thelen, Skala, & Kelso, 1987; Thelen & Urich, 1991). A dynamic pattern perspective might suggest that speech movements emerge gradually through an interaction of context (i.e., external conditions) with intrinsically generated patterns stemming from the rhythmic movements of sucking, chewing, reduplicated babbling, and variegated babbling. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptAn alternative approach holds that speech develops independent of extant behaviors, emerging as a new and unique motor skill. Support for this position is drawn directly from observations of babbling rhythmicity (see summary by Kent, Mitchell, & Sancier, 1991) and further relies on findings that the coordinative organization of mature speech is distinct from that of any of the postulated precursors (Moore et al., 1988;Ostry & Munhall, 1994). The established orofacial coordination available to children from these behaviors does not appear to be well suited to speech. For example, kinematic and po...

show abstract

“…There is an extensive literature on the motor control of the jaw that focuses on the human masticatory system (for reviews, see Hannam and McMillan 1994;Hellsing 1987;Luschei and Goldberg 1981;Trulsson and Johansson 1996;van Eijden and Turkawski 2001;Wood 1987). This includes studies of motorunit properties and afferent mechanisms as well as studies of jaw-movement kinematics, electromyographic activity, and force production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship Between Jaw Stiffness and Kinematic Variability in Speech

Shiller

Laboissière

Ostry

2002

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans produce speech by controlling a complex biomechanical apparatus to achieve desired speech sounds. We show here that kinematic variability in speech may be influenced by patterns of jaw stiffness. A robotic device was used to deliver mechanical perturbations to the jaw to quantify its stiffness in the mid-sagittal plane. Measured jaw stiffness was anisotropic. Stiffness was greatest along a protrusion-retraction axis and least in the direction of jaw raising and lowering. Consistent with the idea that speech movements reflect directional asymmetries in jaw stiffness, kinematic variability during speech production was found to be high in directions in which stiffness is low and vice versa. In addition, for higher jaw elevations, stiffness was greater and kinematic variability was less. The observed patterns of kinematic variability were not specific to speech—similar patterns appeared in speech and nonspeech movements. The empirical patterns of stiffness were replicated by using a physiologically based model of the jaw. The simulation studies support the idea that the pattern of jaw stiffness is affected by musculo-skeletal geometry and muscle-force-generating abilities with jaw geometry being the primary determinant of the orientation of the stiffness ellipse.

show abstract

Neural Mechanisms of Mandibular Control: Mastication and Voluntary Biting

Cited by 130 publications

References 204 publications

The influence of pain on masseter spindle afferent discharge

The influence of pain on masseter spindle afferent discharge

Does Speech Emerge From Earlier Appearing Oral Motor Behaviors?

Relationship Between Jaw Stiffness and Kinematic Variability in Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About