4.8 Article

Correlated physiological and perceptual effects of noise in a tactile stimulus

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0914750107

关键词

psychophysics; somatosensory cortex; vibration; whisker; finger

资金

  1. Human Frontier Science Program [RG0041/2009-C]
  2. Eurpoean Community [BIOTACT-21590]
  3. Friuli Venezia Giulia region
  4. Italian Institute of Technology
  5. Australian Research Council [DP0663086, DP0987133]
  6. Human Frontiers Science Program
  7. Australian Research Council [DP0663086, DP0987133] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated connections between the physiology of rat barrel cortex neurons and the sensation of vibration in humans. One set of experiments measured neuronal responses in anesthetized rats to trains of whisker deflections, each train characterized either by constant amplitude across all deflections or by variable amplitude (amplitude noise). Firing rate and firing synchrony were, on average, boosted by the presence of noise. However, neurons were not uniform in their responses to noise. Barrel cortex neurons have been categorized as regular-spiking units (putative excitatory neurons) and fast-spiking units (putative inhibitory neurons). Among regular-spiking units, amplitude noise caused a higher firing rate and increased cross-neuron synchrony. Among fast-spiking units, noise had the opposite effect: It led to a lower firing rate and decreased cross-neuron synchrony. This finding suggests that amplitude noise affects the interaction between inhibitory and excitatory neurons. From these physiological effects, we expected that noise would lead to an increase in the perceived intensity of a vibration. We tested this notion using psychophysical measurements in humans. As predicted, subjects overestimated the intensity of noisy vibrations. Thus the physiological mechanisms present in barrel cortex also appear to be at work in the human tactile system, where they affect vibration perception.

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

4.8
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