2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 2010
DOI: 10.1109/iembs.2010.5626229
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural preservation of deafferented cortex induced by electrical stimulation of a sensory peripheral nerve

Abstract: Any manipulation to natural sensory input has direct effects on the morphology and physiology of the Central Nervous System. In the particular case of amputations, sensory areas of the brain undergo degenerative processes with a marked reduction in neuronal activity and global disinhibition. This is probably due to a deregulation of the circuits devoted to the control of the cortical activity. These changes are detected in the organization of the representational maps, the metabolic labeling by 2-deoxyglucose … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The different effect of the neurostimulation on the trigeminal neuronal subtypes could explain central phenomena we have reported in previous works, namely that electrical stimulation protects against deafferentation-dependent degeneration of the somatosensory pathway but does not protect against the interruption of the cholinergic input to the somatosensory cortex (Herrera-Rincon et al, 2010a,b, 2012; Herrera-Rincon and Panetsos, 2014). Such an effect could be due to the different action of the electrical stimulation over the myelinated (TrkB and TrkC) neurons, projecting epicritically to thalamus and cortex, and the unmyelinated neurons (TrkA and IB4), projecting protopatically to the reticular system and basal prosencephalon.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…The different effect of the neurostimulation on the trigeminal neuronal subtypes could explain central phenomena we have reported in previous works, namely that electrical stimulation protects against deafferentation-dependent degeneration of the somatosensory pathway but does not protect against the interruption of the cholinergic input to the somatosensory cortex (Herrera-Rincon et al, 2010a,b, 2012; Herrera-Rincon and Panetsos, 2014). Such an effect could be due to the different action of the electrical stimulation over the myelinated (TrkB and TrkC) neurons, projecting epicritically to thalamus and cortex, and the unmyelinated neurons (TrkA and IB4), projecting protopatically to the reticular system and basal prosencephalon.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…For details about experimental procedures see [9]. Briefly, to evaluate an automatic image analysis system and to assess the restoring effects of BMIs on the amputated peripheral nerves, we compared intact nerves from rats without any peripheral manipulation (Control group) with experimental nerves o neuromas of rats with complete section of the trigeminal nerve (Amputated animals) and experimental nerves o neuromas of rats with complete section of the trigeminal nerve but to which a stimulating device was implanted immediately after the lesion (Prosthetic animals).…”
Section: A Surgery and Implantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Figure 1 a schematic presentation of the experiment can be shown. More details on the experimental procedures are given in (Herrera-Rincon et al, 2010a , b ).…”
Section: The Role Of Artificially Induced Electric Fields In Neural Rmentioning
confidence: 99%