Display options
Cite
Blake DT, Spingath E. The most sensitive inputs to cutaneous representing regions of primary somatosensory cortex do not change with behavioral training. Physiol Rep. 2015;3(12)doi: 10.14814/phy2.12623.
Blake, D. T., & Spingath, E. (2015). The most sensitive inputs to cutaneous representing regions of primary somatosensory cortex do not change with behavioral training. Physiological reports, 3(12), . https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.12623
Blake, David T, and Spingath, Elsie. "The most sensitive inputs to cutaneous representing regions of primary somatosensory cortex do not change with behavioral training." Physiological reports vol. 3,12 (2015). doi: https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.12623
Blake DT, Spingath E. The most sensitive inputs to cutaneous representing regions of primary somatosensory cortex do not change with behavioral training. Physiol Rep. 2015 Dec;3(12). doi: 10.14814/phy2.12623. PMID: 26634900; PMCID: PMC4760438.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Physiol Rep. 2015 Dec;3(12). doi: 10.14814/phy2.12623.

The most sensitive inputs to cutaneous representing regions of primary somatosensory cortex do not change with behavioral training.

Physiological reports

David T Blake, Elsie Spingath

Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Brain and Behavior Discovery Institute, Augusta, Georgia [email protected] [email protected].
  2. Department of Neurology, Brain and Behavior Discovery Institute, Augusta, Georgia.

PMID: 26634900 PMCID: PMC4760438 DOI: 10.14814/phy2.12623

Abstract

Learning a sensory detection task leads to an increased primary sensory cortex response to the detected stimulus, while learning a sensory discrimination task additionally leads to a decreased sensory cortex response to the distractor stimulus. Neural responses are scaled up, and down, in strength, along with concomitant changes in receptive field size. The present work considers neural response properties that are invariant to learning. Data are drawn from two animals that were trained to detect and discriminate spatially separate taps delivered to positions on the skin of their fingers. Each animal was implanted with electrodes positioned in area 3b, and responses were derived on a near daily basis over 84 days in animal 1 and 202 days in animal 2. Responses to taps delivered in the receptive field were quantitatively measured each day, and receptive fields were audiomanually mapped each day. In the subset of responses that had light cutaneous receptive fields, a preponderance of the days, the most sensitive region of the field was invariant to training. This skin region was present in the receptive field on all, or nearly all, occasions in which the receptive field was mapped, and this region constituted roughly half of the most sensitive region. These results suggest that maintaining the most sensitive inputs as dominant in cortical receptive fields provide a measure of stability that may be transformationally useful for minimizing reconstruction errors and perceptual constancy.

© 2015 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Physiological Society and The Physiological Society.

Keywords: Implant; map plasticity; receptive field; somatosensory

References

  1. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1959 Sep;105:133-62 - PubMed
  2. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1998;21:149-86 - PubMed
  3. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1995;18:129-58 - PubMed
  4. Nature. 2001 Aug 2;412(6846):549-53 - PubMed
  5. J Neurophysiol. 1957 Jul;20(4):408-34 - PubMed
  6. Somatosens Mot Res. 2002;19(4):347-57 - PubMed
  7. J Neurosci Methods. 2012 Oct 15;211(1):114-24 - PubMed
  8. Nature. 1995 Nov 2;378(6552):71-5 - PubMed
  9. J Comp Neurol. 1984 Apr 20;224(4):591-605 - PubMed
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jul 23;99(15):10114-9 - PubMed
  11. J Neurophysiol. 2002 Apr;87(4):1867-88 - PubMed
  12. J Neurophysiol. 1991 Sep;66(3):1048-58 - PubMed
  13. J Neurophysiol. 2013 Feb;109(4):1036-44 - PubMed
  14. J Physiol. 1978 Aug;281:101-25 - PubMed
  15. J Neurophysiol. 1992 May;67(5):1031-56 - PubMed
  16. Neuron. 2006 Oct 19;52(2):371-81 - PubMed
  17. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 7;107(36):15927-32 - PubMed
  18. J Neurophysiol. 1995 Dec;74(6):2685-706 - PubMed
  19. Behav Brain Res. 2005 Jul 30;162(2):207-21 - PubMed
  20. PLoS One. 2011 Jan 31;6(1):e15342 - PubMed
  21. Cereb Cortex. 1999 Apr-May;9(3):264-76 - PubMed
  22. Neuron. 2001 Oct 25;32(2):359-74 - PubMed
  23. J Comp Neurol. 1978 Sep 1;181(1):41-73 - PubMed
  24. J Physiol Paris. 1996;90(3-4):277-87 - PubMed
  25. J Neurophysiol. 2005 Sep;94(3):2239-50 - PubMed
  26. Physiol Rep. 2015 Dec;3(12): - PubMed
  27. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Apr;5(4):279-90 - PubMed
  28. J Neurosci Methods. 1999 Oct 30;93(1):27-35 - PubMed
  29. J Physiol. 1970 Feb;206(2):419-36 - PubMed
  30. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Aug 17;107(33):14828-32 - PubMed
  31. Science. 1957 Mar 22;125(3247):549-50 - PubMed
  32. J Neurophysiol. 1990 Jan;63(1):82-104 - PubMed
  33. Brain Res. 1976 Nov 5;116(2):181-204 - PubMed
  34. J Neurophysiol. 2009 Sep;102(3):1843-53 - PubMed
  35. J Neurosci Methods. 2007 Mar 30;161(1):62-74 - PubMed
  36. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1988 Jan;26(1):96-101 - PubMed
  37. J Neurophysiol. 1992 May;67(5):1015-30 - PubMed
  38. Cereb Cortex. 2008 Jul;18(7):1676-94 - PubMed
  39. J Neurosci. 1995 Mar;15(3 Pt 1):1631-47 - PubMed

Publication Types