4.8 Article

Sensory computations in the cuneate nucleus of macaques

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2115772118

关键词

touch; neural coding; receptive fields; vibration; integration

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [NS122333, NS095162, NS096952]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are distinct differences in how tactile nerve fibers and cortical neurons process tactile information, with responses in the cuneate nucleus (CN) being more similar to cortical counterparts. The CN plays a key role in processing tactile information, contrary to the traditional view that sensory signals are mainly processed in the cortex.
Tactile nerve fibers fall into a few classes that can be readily distinguished based on their spatiotemporal response properties. Because nerve fibers reflect local skin deformations, they individually carry ambiguous signals about object features. In contrast, cortical neurons exhibit heterogeneous response properties that reflect computations applied to convergent input from multiple classes of afferents, which confer to them a selectivity for behaviorally relevant features of objects. The conventional view is that these complex response properties arise within the cortex itself, implying that sensory signals are not processed to any significant extent in the two intervening structures-the cuneate nucleus (CN) and the thalamus. To test this hypothesis, we recorded the responses evoked in the CN to a battery of stimuli that have been extensively used to characterize tactile coding in both the periphery and cortex, including skin indentations, vibrations, random dot patterns, and scanned edges. We found that CN responses are more similar to their cortical counterparts than they are to their inputs: CN neurons receive input from multiple classes of nerve fibers, they have spatially complex receptive fields, and they exhibit selectivity for object features. Contrary to consensus, then, the CN plays a key role in processing tactile information.

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