4.5 Article

Bilateral processing of vestibular responses revealed by injecting lidocaine into the eighth cranial nerve in vitro

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 999, 期 1, 页码 106-117

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2003.11.043

关键词

brainstem; electrophysiology; head rotation; vestibular nucleus; turtle; push-pull; nerve block; sensory afferent

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY05978] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC03894, R01 DC003834-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracellular unit responses were recorded from the vestibular nucleus (VN) and medial longitudinal fasciculus during horizontal head rotation of an in vitro turtle brainstem in which the temporal bones remained attached. Units were characterized as type I or type II based on the responses to ipsiversive or contraversive rotation, respectively. Lidocaine injections (0.5-2 mul of 0.5%) into the root of the eighth cranial nerve within the cranium caused rapid effects on unit responses to head rotation. Responses of type I units were reduced by ipsilateral injection but enhanced following contralateral injection. On the other hand, type II units had their responses increased by ipsilateral injections yet decreased by contralateral injections. In approximately half of the type II cells, decrease of the contraversive response was accompanied by the appearance of latent ipsiversive activity. Our findings not only confirm that each eighth nerve has afferents that drive ipsiversive excitation of both vestibular nuclei but also suggest that both nerves compete to dominate a central neuron's vestibular response. These results may be inconsistent with the push-pull vestibular model in which each nerve drives the central neuron with a complementary response that enhances the vestibular output. An alternate model is described in which vestibular neurons receive bilateral excitation, and that excitatory input is antagonized by crossed inhibition during contraversive motion. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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