4.7 Article

Human Muscle Spindle Sensitivity Reflects the Balance of Activity between Antagonistic Muscles

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 34, 期 41, 页码 13644-13655

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2611-14.2014

关键词

afferent; motor control; muscle spindle; proprioception; reflex; sense of agency

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council Grant [2011-13923-86096-69]
  2. Medical Faculty of Umea University Grant [FS1.3.5-99-14]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Muscle spindles are commonly considered as stretch receptors encoding movement, but the functional consequence of their efferent control has remained unclear. The alpha-gamma coactivation hypothesis states that activity in a muscle is positively related to the output of its spindle afferents. However, in addition to the above, possible reciprocal inhibition of spindle controllers entails a negative relationship between contractile activity in one muscle and spindle afferent output from its antagonist. By recording spindle afferent responses from alert humans using microneurography, I show that spindle output does reflect antagonistic muscle balance. Specifically, regardless of identical kinematic profiles across active finger movements, stretch of the loaded antagonist muscle (i.e., extensor) was accompanied by increased afferent firing rates from this muscle compared with the baseline case of no constant external load. In contrast, spindle firing rates from the stretching antagonist were lowest when the agonist muscle powering movement (i.e., flexor) acted against an additional resistive load. Stepwise regressions confirmed that instantaneous velocity, extensor, and flexor muscle activity had a significant effect on spindle afferent responses, with flexor activity having a negative effect. Therefore, the results indicate that, as consequence of their efferent control, spindle sensitivity (gain) to muscle stretch reflects the balance of activity between antagonistic muscles rather than only the activity of the spindle-bearing muscle.

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