Characteristics of dorsal horn neurons expressing subliminal responses to sural nerve stimulation

• Published in: Somatosensory & motor research Vol. 7; no. 2; p. 137
• Main Author: Pubols, L M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 1990
• Subjects: Afferent Pathways - physiology; Animals; Cats; Electric Stimulation; Female; Ganglia, Spinal - physiology; Male; Membrane Potentials; Neurons - physiology; Skin - innervation; Spinal Nerves - physiology; Subliminal Stimulation; Sural Nerve - physiology
• ISSN: 0899-0220
• DOI: 10.3109/08990229009144704

The present study was designed (1) to characterize the subliminal responses of dorsal horn neurons to stimulation of the sural nerve, and (2) to correlate the type of response to this stimulus with the responses to natural mechanical stimulation of the skin. To accomplish this, intracellular and extracellular recordings were carried out in L6 and L7 dorsal horn neurons in the cat. The excitatory responses of each cell to electrical stimulation of the sural nerve and to mechanical stimulation of the skin were noted. Of 35 dorsal horn cells recorded intracellularly, 11 responded with impulses to sural nerve stimulation, 9 responded with excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) but not impulses, and 15 had no excitatory responses to this stimulus. The type of response to sural nerve stimulation was strongly correlated with receptive field modality. Most cells receiving an input from high-threshold cutaneous mechanoreceptors responded with impulses or gave no excitatory response to sural nerve stimulation, whereas most cells that had only low-threshold mechanoreceptor input responded with EPSPs only or gave no response. In cells with only low-threshold (LT) mechanoreceptive input, response to sural nerve stimulation was highly correlated with receptive field locus. Those LT cells with no excitatory responses to sural nerve stimulation had receptive fields confined to the foot and/or toes, whereas those that gave EPSPs had more proximal receptive fields. The possible significance of these data with reference to changes observed after lesions, such as increased response to sural nerve stimulation, increased receptive field size, and somatotopic reorganization, is discussed.