4.7 Article

Changes in human muscle spindle sensitivity during a proprioceptive attention task

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 27, Issue 19, Pages 5172-5178

Publisher

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0572-07.2007

Keywords

fusimotor neurons; muscle spindle; noise; kinesthesia; proprioception; microneurography

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to test whether fusimotor control of human muscle spindle sensitivity changed when attention was selectively directed to the recognition of an imposed two-dimensional movement in the form of a written symbol. The unitary activities of 32 muscle spindle afferents (26 Ia, 6 II) were recorded by microneurography at the level of the common peroneal nerve. The patterns of firing rate in response to passive movements of the ankle, forming different letters or numbers, were compared in two conditions: control and recognition. No visual cues were given in either condition, but subjects had to recognize and name the character in one condition compared with not paying attention in the control condition. The results showed that 58% of the tested Ia afferents presented modified responses to movements when these had to be recognized. Changes in Ia afferent responses included decreased depth of modulation, increased variability of discharge, and changes in spontaneous activity. Not all changes were evident in the same afferent. Furthermore, the percentage of correctly recognized movements amounted to 63% when changes were observed, but it was only 48% when the primary ending sensitivity was unaltered. The responses of group II afferents were only weakly changed or unchanged. It is suggested that the altered muscle spindle sensitivity is because of selective changes in fusimotor control, the consequence of which might be to feed the brain movement trajectory information that is more accurate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available