1968
DOI: 10.1016/0024-3205(68)90235-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The relationship between unitary and mass cortical responses to peripheral stimulation in the anaesthetised rat

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
11
0

Year Published

1969
1969
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
3
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…an increased probability of response, an alteration in the scatter of the latency or its mean value. Some of the changes we observed were similar to those described by Angel & Unwin (1968) SOCIETY, MARCH 1969 changes in firing pattern were not observed in all units whose shortlatency response was altered during strong stimulation. All the units were found within the primary somatosensory receiving area.…”
Section: C-2 51psupporting
confidence: 88%
“…an increased probability of response, an alteration in the scatter of the latency or its mean value. Some of the changes we observed were similar to those described by Angel & Unwin (1968) SOCIETY, MARCH 1969 changes in firing pattern were not observed in all units whose shortlatency response was altered during strong stimulation. All the units were found within the primary somatosensory receiving area.…”
Section: C-2 51psupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Bilateral representation was only found for receptive fields on the teeth and face. There would thus appear to be considerable disparity between the results obtained from evoked potential and single unit studies, despite the close correlation that might be expected from these two methods of investigation (Angel & Holmes, 1967;Angel & Unwin, 1968).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3). The amplitude of the N1 wave is increased by up to 10 times after catechol administration and Angel & Unwin (1968) have shown that if the N1 wave increases in amplitude, the discharge probability of cortical cells responding with a short latency to peripheral stimulation also increases. These 'N1 cells' are located in the superficial layers of the cortex (0.35-1.2 mm below the surface), have small receptive fields and cannot be discharged antidromically by pyramidal tract (PT) stimulation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1973 ), was not significantly altered by Etomidate. Ni, however, which has been suggested to reflect the cortical response to the arrival of the afferent volley ( Angel & Unwin 1968), was depressed in a dose‐dependent manner. Thus, both single cell and mass response records indicate that Etomidate perturbs evoked cortical behaviour in the absence of a corresponding change at the thalamic level.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After an initial latent period of 4±6 ms, peripheral stimulation is followed by an initial positive in¯ection in the mass response (Pi) and, thereafter, by an initial negative in¯ection (Ni). The amplitude of Pi is related to the magnitude of the thalamocortical volley (Angel et al, 1973), while the size of Ni re¯ects the extent of the cortical response to the arrival of the volley (Angel & Unwin, 1968). A reduction in ventroposterolateral thalamic cell responsiveness is accompanied therefore by an increase in the latency and reduction in the amplitude of Pi, while a decrease in the amplitude of Ni corresponds to a diminution in primary somatosensory cortical cell responsiveness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%