VARIABILITY OF SENSORY NERVE ENDINGS IN FOOT PADS OF A DOMESTIC CAT (&lt;i&gt;FELIS OCREAT&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;A&lt;/i&gt; L., &lt;i&gt;F. DOMESTIC&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;A&lt;/i&gt;)

Malinovský, L

doi:10.1159/000142823

Cited by 23 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, Malinovsky and Navratilova (1990a) determined that the portal vein was formed by left gastric, splenic and cranial mesenteric veins. In Van cat, the portal vein was formed by the gastroduodenal, splenic, cranial mesenteric, right gastric and cystic veins.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A macroscopical investigation of the portal veins of the Van cat

Özüdoğru¹,

Soygüder²,

Aksoy³

et al. 2005

Vet. Med. - Czech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study veins that constituted the portal vein were investigated in eight adult Van cats. The portal vein of the Van cat was composed of five peripheral branches which supplied the abdominal organs and two intrahepatic branches at the hepatic porta. The peripheral branches were cranial mesenteric, splenic, gastroduodenal, right gastric and cystic veins. The cranial mesenteric vein was the largest vessel that joined to the portal vein, and was constituted by the caudal pancreaticoduodenal, ileal, ileocolic and jejunal veins. The splenic vein was formed by the left gastric, left gastroepiploic, pancreatic and short gastric veins. The gastroduodenal vein was formed by the cranial pancreaticoduodenal and right gastroepiploic veins. The right gastric vein separately joined to the portal vein. The caudal mesenteric vein joined to the portal vein either alone or by a common trunk receiving either the caudal pancreaticoduodenal vein or ileocolic vein. The caudal mesenteric vein also opened rarely into the splenic vein. Intrahepatic branches were the right branch which gave off the ramus caudatus and ramus dexter lateralis, and the left branch which gave off the ramus dexter medialis, ramus quadratus, ramus sinister lateralis and ramus sinister medialis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A macroscopical investigation of the portal veins of the Van cat

Özüdoğru¹,

Soygüder²,

Aksoy³

et al. 2005

Vet. Med. - Czech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2). Many were close to the margins of the forelimb toe pads where Pacinian corpuscles are known to be concentrated (Kumamoto et al 1993;Lynn 1969;Malinovsky 1966), whereas other fields, on more proximal limb locations, may represent sites from which stimuli may have spread to activate PC receptors in regions such as the interosseous membranes or the joints.…”

Section: Dcn Neurons Activated Selectively By Dynamic Components Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As these receptors and their associated PC sensory fibers are absent or infrequent in the hairy skin (Brown and Iggo 1967;Tuckett et al 1978), their recruitment by vibrotactile stimuli applied to the hairy skin must occur by spread of the mechanical perturbation to the site of these receptors, around the margins of the toe and foot pads (Kumamoto et al 1993;Lynn 1969;Malinovsky 1966) in the case of vibrotactile stimuli delivered to the hairy skin in distal regions of the limb and, perhaps to the deeper Pacinian corpuscles associated with the interosseous membrane or joints of the limb, in the case of vibrotactile stimuli applied to more proximal parts of the limb. This need for stimulus spread would account for the higher behavioral thresholds for detection in the hairy skin of the mid-forearm compared with the glabrous skin in human subjects Merzenich and Harrington 1969;Talbot et al 1968).…”

Section: Coding By Cuneate Neurons Of High-frequency Vibrotactile Infmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing of Vibrotactile Inputs From Hairy Skin by Neurons of the Dorsal Column Nuclei in the Cat

Sahai

Mahns

Robinson

et al. 2006

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. The capacity of single neurons of the dorsal column nuclei (DCN) for coding vibrotactile information from the hairy skin has been investigated in anesthetized cats to permit quantitative comparison first with the capacities of DCN neurons responding to glabrous skin vibrotactile inputs and second with those of spinocervical tract neurons responding to vibrotactile inputs from hairy skin. Dynamically sensitive tactile neurons of the DCN the input of which came from hairy skin could be divided into two classes, one associated with hair follicle afferent (HFA) input, the other with Pacinian corpuscle (PC) input. The HFA-related class was most sensitive to low-frequency (Ͻ50 Hz) vibration and had a graded response output as a function of vibrotactile intensity changes. PCrelated neurons had a broader vibrotactile sensitivity, extending to Ն300 Hz and appeared to derive their input from the margins of hairy skin, near the footpads, or from deeper PC sources such as the interosseous membranes or joints. HFA-related neurons had phaselocked responses to vibration frequencies up to ϳ75 Hz, whereas PC neurons retained this capacity up to frequencies of ϳ300 Hz with tightest phaselocking between 50 and 200 Hz. Quantitative measures of phaselocking revealed that the HFA-related neurons provide the better signal of vibrotactile frequency up to ϳ50 Hz with a switchover to the PC-related neurons above that value. In conclusion, the functional capacities of these two classes of cuneate neuron appear to account for behavioral vibrotactile frequency discriminative performance in hairy skin, in contrast to the limited capacities of vibrotactile-sensitive neurons within the spinocervical tract system.

show abstract

“…In addition to understanding the relationships of individual receptors to other skin structures [Cauna, 1954;Quilliam, 1966Quilliam, , 1975Halata, 1975], the only array characteristics that have been examined in detail are receptor density [Miller et al, 1958;Miller and Kasahara, 1959;Fitz gerald, 1961;Jdnig, 1971;Gottschaldt and Lausmann, 1974] and the pro portional representation of different receptor types [Malinovsky, 1966;Malinovsky and Zemanek, 1969;Gottschaldt and Lausmann, 1974]. Sta tistics like the CD and the S provide an additional language with which to discuss array properties, although there are still unsolved problems con cerning their use.…”

Section: Receptor Arraysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meissner's corpuscles in ground squirrels are most like those in mice [Iclé, 1976[Iclé, , 1977 and are similar to, but less elaborate than, those in opossums [Winkelmann, 1964], humans [Caima, 1956;Caima and Ross, 1960;Hashi moto, 1973] and other primates [Sevier and Manger, 1965;Halata, 1975]. The high degree of variability in squirrel simple corpuscles is simi lar to that seen in cats [Malinovsky, 1966] and their general morphology is comparable to that of endings in moles [Halata, 1972[Halata, , 1975, rats [Mac intosh, 1975] and chickens [Malinovsky, 1968]. The Pacinian corpus cles found in tree squirrels, but not ground squirrels, are very similar to those found in cats [Pease and Quilliam, 1957], raccoons [Mutiger and Pubols, 1972], humans [Caima, 1958;Mannan, 1959] andopossums [13renowitz et al, 1980], The most striking differences between receptor populations in the two squirrels studied here are the lack of Pa cinian corpouscles in ground squirrels and the lack of Meissner's corpus cles in tree squirrels.…”

Section: Receptor Morphologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cutaneous Mechanoreceptor Distribution and Its Relationship to Behavioral Specializations in Squirrels

Brenowitz¹

1980

Brain Behav Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between sensory specializations and behavioral specializations in two ecologically distinct species of squirrels was examined. It was predicted that the relative density of receptors in the glabrous forepaw skin of tree squirrels (Sciurus niger), which are skilled climbers and manipulate food items extensively, would be higher than that in ground squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), which dig underground burrows. In addition to testing this prediction, several other aspects of the distribution of receptors were quantitatively examined in silver-stained material. As predicted, the relative density of receptors in the glabrous forepaw skin of tree squirrels is significantly higher than that in ground squirrels. Receptors are randomly dispersed and different classes of receptors (corpuscular vs. non-corpuscular) are intermingled in the palmar skin of both species. The proportions of the different classes of receptors do not differ among species.

show abstract

VARIABILITY OF SENSORY NERVE ENDINGS IN FOOT PADS OF A DOMESTIC CAT (<i>FELIS OCREAT</i><i>A</i> L., <i>F. DOMESTIC</i><i>A</i>)

Cited by 23 publications

References 2 publications

A macroscopical investigation of the portal veins of the Van cat

A macroscopical investigation of the portal veins of the Van cat

Processing of Vibrotactile Inputs From Hairy Skin by Neurons of the Dorsal Column Nuclei in the Cat

Cutaneous Mechanoreceptor Distribution and Its Relationship to Behavioral Specializations in Squirrels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About