4.7 Article

Information about Complex Fingertip Parameters in Individual Human Tactile Afferent Neurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 29, 期 25, 页码 8022-8031

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0665-09.2009

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [IST-028056]
  2. Swedish Research Council [08667]
  3. University of Edinburgh
  4. Microsoft Research-Royal Academy of Engineering senior research fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although information in tactile afferent neurons represented by firing rates has been studied extensively over nearly a century, recent studies suggest that precise spike timing might be more important than firing rates. Here, we used information theory to compare the information content in the discharges of 92 tactile afferents distributed over the entire terminal segment of the fingertip when it was contacted by surfaces with different curvatures and force directions representative of everyday manipulations. Estimates of the information content with regard to curvature and force direction based on the precise timing of spikes were at least 2.2 times and 1.6 times, respectively, larger than that of spike counts during a 125 ms period of force increase. Moreover, the information regarding force direction based on the timing of the very first elicited spike was comparable with that provided by spike counts and more than twice as large with respect to object shape. For all encoding schemes, afferents terminating close to the stimulation site tended to convey more information about surface curvature than more remote afferents that tended to convey more information about force direction. Finally, coding schemes based on spike timing and spike counts overall contributed mostly independent information. We conclude that information about tactile stimuli in timing of spikes in primary afferents, even if limited to the first spikes, surpasses that contained in firing rates and that these measures of afferents' responses might capture different aspects of the stimulus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据