Organization of Noxious and Non-Noxious Inputs in SmI Cortex: Comparison in Normal and in Arthritic Rats
Experimental evidence for a noxious input to the cerebral somatosensory neocortex is so far very limited. Observations suggesting that the cerebral cortex is actually not directly involved in pain mechanisms have been reported (Penfield and Rasmussen 1950). However, preliminary observations of somatosensory cortical neurones driven by noxious stimuli have been reported in cat and monkey (see references in Lamour et al., 1983 a et b).
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Armstrong-James, M., (1975) The functional status and columnar organization of single cells responding to cutaneous stimulation in neonatal rat somatosensory cortex SI. J. Physiol (Lond) 246, 501–538Google Scholar
- Chapin, J.K., Lin, C.S., Woodward D.J (1930) Laminar differences in the size and shape of receptive fields in rat somatosensory (SI) cortex. 10th Annual Meeting, Cincinnati. Neuroscience Abstr. 6, 62Google Scholar
- Iggo, A., Guilbaud, G., Tegner, R., (1983) Sensory mechanisms in arthritic rats. In pressGoogle Scholar
- Jones, E.G., Friedman, D.P., Hendry, S.H.C (1982) Thalamic basis of place-and modality-specific columns in monkey somatosensory cortex: a correlative anatomical and physiological study. J. Comp. Neurol. 48, 545–568Google Scholar
- Lamour, Y., Willer, J.C., Guilbaud, G (1983) Rat somatosensory SmI cortex: I characteristics of neuronal responses to noxious stimulation and comparison with responses to non-non noxious stimulation. Exp. Brain Res. 49, 39–45Google Scholar
- Merzenich M.M., Kaas J.H (1982) Reorganization of mammalian somatosensory cortex following peripheral nerve injury. Trends in Neuroscience. dec, 434–436Google Scholar
- Penfield W., Rasmussen T (1950) The cerebral cortex of man. A clinical study of localization of function. Hafner, New York. Penny G.R., Itoh K., Diamond I.T. (1982) Cells of different sizes in the ventral nuclei project to different layers of the somatic cortex in the cat. Brain Res. 242, 55–65Google Scholar