4.7 Article

Response dynamics of rat barrel cortex neurons to repeated sensory stimulation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-11477-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project [DP140100908]
  2. ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function [CE140100007]
  3. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project grant [1124411]
  4. NHMRC C.J. Martin Early Career Fellowship
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1124411] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuronal adaptation is a common feature observed at various stages of sensory processing. Here, we quantified the time course of adaptation in rat somatosensory cortex. Under urethane anesthesia, we juxta-cellularly recorded single neurons (n = 147) while applying a series of whisker deflections at various frequencies (2-32 Hz). For similar to 90% of neurons, the response per unit of time decreased with frequency. The degree of adaptation increased along the train of deflections and was strongest at the highest frequency. However, a subset of neurons showed facilitation producing higher responses to subsequent deflections. The response latency to consecutive deflections increased both for neurons that exhibited adaptation and for those that exhibited response facilitation. Histological reconstruction of neurons (n = 45) did not reveal a systematic relationship between adaptation profiles and cell types. In addition to the periodic stimuli, we applied a temporally irregular train of deflections with a mean frequency of 8 Hz. For 70% of neurons, the response to the irregular stimulus was greater than that of the 8 Hz regular. This increased response to irregular stimulation was positively correlated with the degree of adaptation. Altogether, our findings demonstrate high levels of diversity among cortical neurons, with a proportion of neurons showing facilitation at specific temporal intervals.

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