Search

Objective: To investigate the effect of conditioning painful stimulation on the early somatosensory magnetic fields (SEF) of test stimulation, in order to clarify the location of the gating effect of pain on tactile response.Methods: We used a conditioning stimulus (CS) and test stimulus (TS) paradigm. The CS was applied at the left index finger followed by the TS at the left median nerve. The interstimulus interval between the CS and TS was varied from 100 to 1000 ms. There were two sessions corresponding to two intensities of the CS, painful CS (PCS) and non-painful CS (NPCS). Early components of SEF recorded 20 (1M) and 30 ms (2M) following the TS and the components obtained 20 (1m) and 30 ms (2m) following the CS were analyzed. Each value was compared between the two sessions.Results: PCS and NPCS attenuated the response of the 2M but not the 1M. The effect of PCS was significantly stronger and lasted longer than that of NPCS. The 1m and 2m components did not differ between PCS and NPCS in terms of amplitude and latency.Conclusions: Our data indicated that the early components of the median nerve SEF were affected by a preceding painful stimulation much more than a non-painful stimulus given on the median nerve, and that the sensory gating effect of a painful stimulation on tactile sensation lasted longer than that of a non-painful stimulation. Furthermore, our findings suggested the existence of a ‘touch gate’ (effect of pain on tactile sensation) at the level of the thalamus or primary somatosensory cortex (SI).Significance: The finding suggested that the touch gate might lie in the thalamus or SI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To confirm the somatotopic representation of the ear in the primary somatosensory cortex (SI), we studied the tactile interference effects on somatosensory evoked magnetic fields (SEFs) following stimulation of the ear (Helix, Lobulus and Tragus).Methods: We applied tactile interference stimulation to the neck or face area continuously and concurrently while a time-locked electrical stimulation was applied to the ear. If the amplitude would be reduced by the interference, this would indicate that the cortical representation for both the time-locked electrical stimulation and the continuous interference stimulation overlapped. A two or 3-source model, Source 1 in the neck area of SI, Source 2 in the face area of SI, and Source 3 in the secondary somatosensory cortex (SII), was found to be the most appropriate by brain electric source analysis (BESA).Results: Amplitudes of Sources 1 and 2 in most interference conditions were decreased. Source 1 following stimulation of all 3 sites was significantly reduced when the interference was applied to the neck area. Source 2 following stimulation of all 3 sites was significantly reduced when the interference was applied to the face area.Conclusions: These findings showed that the interference effect was found in both the neck and face areas of SI following the ear stimulation.Significance: The representation of the ear in SI might be located in both the neck and face areas. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Cerebral processing of first pain, associated with Aδ-fibers, has been studied intensively, but the cerebral processing associated with unmyelinated C-fibers, relating to second pain, remains to be investigated. This is the first study to clarify the primary cortical processing of second pain by magnetoencephalography, through the selective activation of C-fibers, by the stimulation of a tiny area of skin with a CO2 laser. In the hemisphere contralateral to the side stimulated, a one-source generator in the upper bank of the Sylvian fissure (secondary somatosensory cortex, SII) or two-source generators in SII and the hand area of the primary somatosensory cortex (SI) were the optimal configurations for the first component 1M. The onset and peak latency of the two sources in SI and SII were not significantly different. In the hemisphere ipsilateral to the stimulation, only one source was estimated in SII, and its peak latency was significantly (approximately 18 ms on average) longer than that of the SII source in the contralateral hemisphere.From our findings we suggest that parallel activation of SI and SII contralateral to the stimulation represents the first step in the cortical processing of C-fiber-related activities, probably related to second pain. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: We recorded event-related magnetic fields following a target stimulus followed by a masking stimulus to investigate the visual backward masking effect using a helmet-type magnetoencephalography system in humans. Methods: In the target stimulus with masking stimulus conditions, duration of the target stimulus was constant at 16 ms, and duration of the masking stimulus was altered (16, 48 and 144 ms). The target stimulus was masked by the 144-ms masking stimulus, but not by the 16-ms masking stimulus, and was obscured by the 48-ms masking stimulus. For control conditions (Single-condition), event-related magnetic fields were recorded following the sole presentation of the masking stimulus for 32, 64 or 160 ms. Results: One major response was obtained at 180 ms after the onset of the stimulation in each condition. The equivalent current dipole of one major response was estimated to lie in the occipital lobe, but there was a relatively large inter-individual difference. There was no significant difference in latency between the target stimulus with masking stimulus conditions and Single-conditions. In the target stimulus with masking stimulus conditions with the 48- and 144-ms masking stimulus, the root mean square value did not differ from that in the respective Single-condition, while the root mean square value for the target stimulus with masking stimulus conditions with the 16-ms masking stimulus was significantly smaller than that in the Single-condition with the 32-ms masking stimulus, but not different from that in the Single-condition with the 16-ms masking stimulus. Conclusions: The peak latency of one major response depended on the onset of the first stimulus for both the target stimulus with masking stimulus conditions and Single-condition, but the root mean square value depended on the duration of the masking stimulus. We concluded that the temporal information for the target stimulus was preserved during the masking effect, while the figural information was interrupted by the masking stimulus. Our results suggested that temporal factors for the stimulus were processed differently from those responsible for the object’s recognition during backward masking. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We recorded somatosensory-evoked magnetic fields and potentials produced by painful intra-epidermal stimulation (ES) and non-painful transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TS) applied to the left hand in 12 healthy volunteers to compare cortical responses to noxious and innocuous somatosensory stimulations. Our results revealed that cortical processing following noxious and innocuous stimulations was strikingly similar except that the former was delayed approximately 60 ms relative to the latter, which was well explained by a difference in peripheral conduction velocity mediating noxious (Aδ fiber) and innocuous (Aβ fiber) inputs. The first cortical activity evoked by both ES and TS was in the primary somatosensory cortex (SI) in the hemisphere contralateral to the stimulated side. The following activities were in the bilateral secondary somatosensory cortex (SII), insular cortex, cingulate cortex, anterior medial temporal area and ipsilateral SI. The source locations did not differ between the two stimulus modalities except that the dipole for insular activity following ES was located more anterior to that following TS. Both ES and TS evoked vertex potentials consisting of a negativity followed by a positivity at a latency of 202 and 304 ms, and 134 and 243 ms, respectively. The time course of the vertex potential corresponded to that of the activity of the medial temporal area. Our results suggested that cortical processing was similar between noxious and innocuous stimulation in SI and SII, but different in insular cortex. Our data also implied that activities in the amygdala/hippocampal formation represented common effects of noxious and tactile stimulations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]