The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has become an increasingly popular technique for non-invasively characterizing neuromagnetic field changes in the brain at a high temporal resolution. To examine the reliability of the MEG signal, we comp...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Recanzone Gregg H, Padberg Jeff, Lowenthal Marianne E, Zumer Johanna M, Zhu Zhao, Krubitzer Leah A, Nagarajan Srikantan S, Disbrow Elizabeth A
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2009-01-01
Series:BMC Neuroscience
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/10/4
id doaj-e5ea9b4b7fbf4ed0aed2c65861727349
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e5ea9b4b7fbf4ed0aed2c658617273492020-11-24T21:33:53ZengBMCBMC Neuroscience1471-22022009-01-01101410.1186/1471-2202-10-4The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuliRecanzone Gregg HPadberg JeffLowenthal Marianne EZumer Johanna MZhu ZhaoKrubitzer Leah ANagarajan Srikantan SDisbrow Elizabeth A<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has become an increasingly popular technique for non-invasively characterizing neuromagnetic field changes in the brain at a high temporal resolution. To examine the reliability of the MEG signal, we compared magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli from the same animals. We examined changes in neuromagnetic fields, local field potentials (LFP) and multi-unit activity (MUA) in macaque monkey primary somatosensory cortex that were induced by varying the rate of mechanical stimulation. Stimuli were applied to the fingertips with three inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs): 0.33s, 1s and 2s.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Signal intensity was inversely related to the rate of stimulation, but to different degrees for each measurement method. The decrease in response at higher stimulation rates was significantly greater for MUA than LFP and MEG data, while no significant difference was observed between LFP and MEG recordings. Furthermore, response latency was the shortest for MUA and the longest for MEG data.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The MEG signal is an accurate representation of electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli. Further, the intensity and latency of the MEG signal were better correlated with the LFP than MUA data suggesting that the MEG signal reflects primarily synaptic currents rather than spiking activity. These differences in latency could be attributed to differences in the extent of spatial summation and/or differential laminar sensitivity.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/10/4
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Recanzone Gregg H
Padberg Jeff
Lowenthal Marianne E
Zumer Johanna M
Zhu Zhao
Krubitzer Leah A
Nagarajan Srikantan S
Disbrow Elizabeth A
spellingShingle Recanzone Gregg H
Padberg Jeff
Lowenthal Marianne E
Zumer Johanna M
Zhu Zhao
Krubitzer Leah A
Nagarajan Srikantan S
Disbrow Elizabeth A
The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
BMC Neuroscience
author_facet Recanzone Gregg H
Padberg Jeff
Lowenthal Marianne E
Zumer Johanna M
Zhu Zhao
Krubitzer Leah A
Nagarajan Srikantan S
Disbrow Elizabeth A
author_sort Recanzone Gregg H
title The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
title_short The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
title_full The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
title_fullStr The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
title_full_unstemmed The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
title_sort relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
publisher BMC
series BMC Neuroscience
issn 1471-2202
publishDate 2009-01-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has become an increasingly popular technique for non-invasively characterizing neuromagnetic field changes in the brain at a high temporal resolution. To examine the reliability of the MEG signal, we compared magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli from the same animals. We examined changes in neuromagnetic fields, local field potentials (LFP) and multi-unit activity (MUA) in macaque monkey primary somatosensory cortex that were induced by varying the rate of mechanical stimulation. Stimuli were applied to the fingertips with three inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs): 0.33s, 1s and 2s.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Signal intensity was inversely related to the rate of stimulation, but to different degrees for each measurement method. The decrease in response at higher stimulation rates was significantly greater for MUA than LFP and MEG data, while no significant difference was observed between LFP and MEG recordings. Furthermore, response latency was the shortest for MUA and the longest for MEG data.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The MEG signal is an accurate representation of electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli. Further, the intensity and latency of the MEG signal were better correlated with the LFP than MUA data suggesting that the MEG signal reflects primarily synaptic currents rather than spiking activity. These differences in latency could be attributed to differences in the extent of spatial summation and/or differential laminar sensitivity.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/10/4
work_keys_str_mv AT recanzonegreggh therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT padbergjeff therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT lowenthalmariannee therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT zumerjohannam therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT zhuzhao therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT krubitzerleaha therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT nagarajansrikantans therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT disbrowelizabetha therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT recanzonegreggh relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT padbergjeff relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT lowenthalmariannee relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT zumerjohannam relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT zhuzhao relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT krubitzerleaha relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT nagarajansrikantans relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT disbrowelizabetha relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
_version_ 1725951390179655680