Intracellular response properties of neurons in the spinal trigeminal nucleus to peripheral and cortical stimulation in the cat

• Published in: Brain research Vol. 514; no. 2; p. 189
• Main Authors: Sunada, T, Kurasawa, I, Hirose, Y, Nakamura, Y
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands 30-04-1990
• Subjects: Action Potentials; Animals; Cats; Electric Stimulation; Neural Pathways - physiology; Neurons, Afferent - physiology; Somatosensory Cortex - physiology; Trigeminal Nucleus, Spinal - physiology
• ISSN: 0006-8993
• DOI: 10.1016/0006-8993(90)91415-D

The responses of the secondary neurons in the spinal trigeminal nucleus oralis (STNo) were recorded intracellularly to peripheral and cortical stimulation in chloralose-anesthetized cats. Electrical stimulation of the trigeminal sensory nerves (the frontal, infraorbital and inferior alveolar nerves) evoked an EPSP superimposed by one or a few spikes followed by a biphasic IPSP in one group of STNo neurons (Type I), and a prolonged EPSP superimposed by a burst of spikes in the other group of STNo neurons (Type II). Nearly half of Type I neurons were trigeminothalamic neurons projecting to the contralateral ventral posteromedial nucleus, while the remaining Type I and all the Type II neurons were non-projection neurons. A majority of Type I neurons responded with spike potentials to stimulation of only one sensory nerve, while most Type II neurons responded to stimulation of more than one nerve. Stimulation of the contralateral primary somatosensory cortex evoked IPSPs in most Type I projection neurons, and EPSPs in all Type II as well as most Type I non-projection neurons. In Type I neurons touch or pressure applied to a circumscribed area in the facial skin evoked an EPSP superimposed by one or a few spikes followed by a biphasic IPSP, and IPSPs were evoked from a wide surrounding area in the face by the same mechanical stimulation. In Type II neurons innocuous mechanical stimulation within a wide area evoked an EPSP, while IPSPs could not be induced from anywhere. The results indicate that postsynaptic inhibition is involved in the surround inhibition as well as corticofugal descending inhibition of sensory transmission in the trigeminal sensory nucleus.