Disruption of cutaneous feedback alters magnitude but not direction of muscle responses to postural perturbations in the decerebrate cat.
Quadrupeds and bipeds respond to horizontal perturbations of the support surface with muscular responses that are broadly tuned and directionally sensitive. Since the discovery of this directional sensitivity, interest has turned toward the critical sensory systems necessary to generate these responses. We hypothesize that cutaneous feedback affects the magnitude of muscle responses to postural perturbation but has little effect on the directionality of the muscle response. We developed a modified premammillary decerebrate cat preparation to evaluate the sensory mechanisms driving this directionally sensitive muscle activation in response to support surface perturbation. This preparation allows us the flexibility to isolate the proprioceptive (cutaneous and muscle receptors) system from other sensory influences. We found that loss of cutaneous feedback leads to a significant loss in background activity causing a smaller muscular response to horizontal perturbations. However, the directional properties of the muscular responses remained intact.
Honeycutt
Claire F
CF
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. c-honeycutt@northwestern.edu
Nichols
T Richard
TR
D000200:Action Potentials / Q000502:physiology; D000818:Animals; D002415:Cats; D003655:Decerebrate State / Q000473:pathology* / Q000503:physiopathology*; D003714:Denervation / Q000379:methods; D004576:Electromyography / Q000379:methods; D025461:Feedback, Physiological / Q000502:physiology*; D016014:Linear Models; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000503:physiopathology*; D004856:Postural Balance / Q000502:physiology*; D012867:Skin / Q000294:innervation*
Exp Brain Res. 2004 Jun;156(4):505-12
14968274
J Physiol. 2001 Oct 1;536(Pt 1):313-27
11579179
J Neurophysiol. 2009 Sep;102(3):1711-24
19605609
J Neurophysiol. 1988 Jul;60(1):204-17
3404217
J Neurophysiol. 1994 Feb;71(2):817-20
8176445
Exp Brain Res. 2000 Feb;130(3):375-91
10706436
Neuroreport. 2002 Oct 28;13(15):1957-61
12395099
J Neurophysiol. 2009 Jun;101(6):2751-61
19321638
Neurosci Lett. 2001 Apr 13;302(1):45-8
11278108
J Neurophysiol. 2010 Jun;103(6):3266-73
20089811
J Neurosci. 2002 Jul 15;22(14):5803-7
12122040
J Neurophysiol. 1988 Jun;59(6):1888-905
3404210
Prog Neurobiol. 1999 Jun;58(2):185-205
10338359
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001 Apr;11(2):64-80
11252464
Prog Brain Res. 1993;97:219-28
8234749
Exp Brain Res. 1976 Jan 26;24:245-55
1253857
J Neurophysiol. 2005 Dec;94(6):3795-804
16079197
Exp Brain Res. 1993;96(1):125-40
8243575
J Neurophysiol. 1996 Nov;76(5):2972-85
8930248
J Neurosci. 2005 May 11;25(19):4733-42
15888649
J Physiol. 1995 Aug 15;487(1):197-209
7473249
J Neurophysiol. 1988 Jul;60(1):218-31
3404218
J Neurophysiol. 2000 Nov;84(5):2709-14
11068014
Exp Brain Res. 2005 Mar;161(4):486-501
15536552
J Neurophysiol. 2004 Aug;92(2):808-23
15084643
Gait Posture. 1998 Dec 1;8(3):214-242
10200410
J Physiol. 1969 Aug;203(2):317-35
5796466
J Neurophysiol. 1998 Oct;80(4):1939-50
9772251
Exp Brain Res. 1998 Oct;122(3):339-50
9808307
J Physiol. 2001 May 1;532(Pt 3):869-78
11313452
J Neurophysiol. 2003 Dec;90(6):3625-39
12944536
J Neurophysiol. 2003 Dec;90(6):3783-93
12930819