Trigeminal Sensory System

Waite, Phil M.E.; Ashwell, Ken W.S.

doi:10.1016/b978-012547626-3/50030-2

Cited by 49 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 270 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The available anatomical data indicate that the trigeminal system reaches the forebrain via the thalamus and large lesions there have little if any effect on CTA regardless of the CS moiety [19, 24]. Several scenarios could explain this apparent conundrum but none is entirely satisfactory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In primates and some other species, this projection arises from the dorsomedial corner of the principal sensory trigeminal nucleus (dmPV) and ascends ipsilaterally in the central tegmental tract to the ventroposteromedial nucleus of the thalamus [35]; see Norgren & Leonard, 1973 for further references). Although this area contains neurons that respond to intraoral tactile stimulation, in rodents, this ipsilateral non-lemniscal trigeminal projection is sparse at best or absent altogether [24, 36]. Regardless, this pathway terminates in the VPM along with the trigeminal lemniscus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, several other possible relays exist through which trigeminal afferent activity could reach the forebrain such as the posterior thalamic nuclei, the central gray, and even the hypothalamus [24, 37]. Neurons in the spinal trigeminal and paratrigeminal nuclei that project directly to the central gray or hypothalamus are normally associated with pain [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pontine and thalamic influences on fluid rewards: II. Sucrose and corn oil conditioned aversions

Liang

Grigson

Norgren

2012

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study conditioned aversions were produced in sham feeding rats to limit postingestive feedback from the oral stimulus. All control rats learned an aversion to either 100% corn oil or 0.3M sucrose when ingestion of these stimuli was followed by an injection of lithium chloride (LiCl). Rats with lesions of the ventroposteromedial thalamus also learned to avoid either corn oil or sucrose. After 3 trials, rats with damage to the parabrachial nuclei (PBN) learned to avoid 100% corn oil, but failed to do so when the stimulus was 0.3M sucrose. These results support our hypothesis that the PBN is necessary to appropriately respond to a taste, but not an oil cue as a function of experience (i.e., pairings with LiCl). The results also are consistent with our results from operant tasks demonstrating that the trigeminal thalamus, the ventroposteromedial nucleus, is not required for responding to the rewarding properties of sucrose, oil, or for modifying the response to these stimuli as a function of experience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pontine and thalamic influences on fluid rewards: II. Sucrose and corn oil conditioned aversions

Liang

Grigson

Norgren

2012

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At this point, lingual V takes a fairly straight course to merge with the mandibular nerve before reaching the Gasserian ganglion and, ultimately, the brainstem [e.g., 11]. IX also takes a direct route, exiting the tongue along the styloglossus muscle and palatine tonsil to reach the inferior petrosal ganglion, then crossing the jugular foramen and the cerebellopontine angle into the brainstem.…”

Section: Innervation Of the Mouthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral sensory nerve damage: Causes and consequences

Snyder

Bartoshuk

2016

Rev Endocr Metab Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral sensations (i.e., taste, oral somatosensation, retronasal olfaction) are integrated into a composite sense of flavor, which guides dietary choices with long-term health impact. The nerves carrying this input are vulnerable to peripheral damage from multiple sources (e.g., otitis media, tonsillectomy, head injury), and this regional damage can boost sensations elsewhere in the mouth because of central interactions among nerve targets. Mutual inhibition governs this compensatory process, but individual differences lead to variation in whole-mouth outcomes: some individuals are unaffected, others experience severe loss, and some encounter sensory increases that may (if experienced early in life) elevate sweet-fat palatability and body mass. Phantom taste, touch, or pain sensations (e.g., burning mouth syndrome) may also occur, particularly in those expressing the most taste buds. To identify and treat these conditions effectively, emerging clinical tests measure regional vs. whole-mouth sensation, stimulated vs. phantom cues, and oral anatomy. Scaling methods allowing valid group comparisons have strongly aided these efforts. Overall, advances in measuring oral sensory function in health and disease show promise for understanding the varied clinical consequences of nerve damage.

show abstract

“…The original hypothesis is that sensory processing of corn oil requires the intraoral trigeminal somatosensory system that bypasses the PBN and projects directly to the thalamus [20]. This hypothesis has been tested after lesions of the PBN and TOA using operant tasks and conditioned taste aversion (CTA).…”

Section: Experiments 2: Anticipatory Contrast Effects In Lesioned Ratsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pontine and thalamic influences on fluid rewards: III. Anticipatory contrast for sucrose and corn oil

Liang

Norgren

Grigson

2012

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An anticipatory contrast effect (ACE) occurs when, across daily trials, an animal comes to respond less than normally to a first stimulus when it is followed shortly by a second, more preferred solution. Classically, ACE is studied using a low (L) concentration of saccharin or sucrose, followed by access to a higher (H) concentration of sucrose. Subjects in the control condition have two bouts of access to the weaker solution presented on the same schedule. The ACE is measured by the difference in intake of the first bout low solution between subjects in the low-low (L-L) vs. the low-high (L-H) conditions. Here we used this paradigm with sham feeding rats and determined that nutritional feedback was unnecessary for the development of ACE with two concentrations of sucrose or with two concentrations of corn oil. Next we showed that ibotenic acid lesions centered in the orosensory thalamus spared ACEs for both sucrose and corn oil. In contrast, lesions of the pontine parabrachial nuclei (PBN), the second central relay for taste in the rat, disrupted ACEs for both sucrose and corn oil. Although the sensory modalities needed for the oral detection of fats remain controversial, it appears that the PBN is involved in processing the comparison of disparate concentrations of sucrose and oil reward.

show abstract

Trigeminal Sensory System

Cited by 49 publications

References 270 publications

Pontine and thalamic influences on fluid rewards: II. Sucrose and corn oil conditioned aversions

Pontine and thalamic influences on fluid rewards: II. Sucrose and corn oil conditioned aversions

Oral sensory nerve damage: Causes and consequences

Pontine and thalamic influences on fluid rewards: III. Anticipatory contrast for sucrose and corn oil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About