“…On the basis of such effects of SCh on the intrafusal fibers in muscle spindles, many investigators have attempted to clarify the functional and morphological significance of muscle spindles, including their afferent contacts on intrafusal fibers, the classification of their afferents, and their central projections (e.g., Cody et al, 1972;Browne, 1975;Dutia, 1980;Inoue et al, 1981;Price and Dutia, 1987;Scott, 1988Scott, , 1990Scott, , 1991Taylor et al, 1992aTaylor et al, ,b, 1993Carr et al, 1996). Although it has been generally agreed that muscle spindle afferents from the limb or neck muscles are mainly classified into primary and secondary endings on the basis of their conduction velocities, fiber diameters, and dynamic and static sensitivities or other functional properties to stretch responses, the position of the dividing line between the two populations is somewhat variable among different muscles (e.g., Hunt, 1951;Matthews, 1963Matthews, , 1972Crowe and Matthews, 1964;Koeze, 1968Koeze, , 1973Lennerstrand, 1968;Matthews and Stein, 1969;Browne, 1975;Cheney and Preston, 1976;Richmond and Abrahams, 1979;Wei et al, 1986;Price and Dutia, 1987;Scott, 1990;Carr et al, 1996). However, jaw muscle and extraocular muscle spindle afferents may not be classified into primary and secondary endings on the basis of their fiber diameters, conduction velocities, as well as from dynamic sensitivities or other parameters to stretch responses, because of the lack of any clear evidence of a bimodal distribution of the values of DI (Browne, 1975;Inoue et al, 1981;Shigenaga et al, 1990;Taylor et al, 1992a).…”