Burke et al. (1988)

Responses to passive movement of receptors in joint, skin and muscle of the human hand.

D Burke, S C Gandevia, and G Macefield.

1. Microneurographic techniques were employed to record unitary activity from afferents associated with digital joints of six conscious human subjects. Of 120 single afferents sampled from the median and ulnar nerves at the wrist, eighteen (15%) were classified as joint afferents; the majority of the sample (72.5%) were of cutaneous origin, and 12.5% were from muscle spindles and tendon organs. 2. Of the eighteen joint afferents six were tonically active in the rest position of the hand. All except two were recruited or accelerated their background discharge during passive joint movement. Three tonically active afferents were responsive to passive movement throughout the physiological range. The majority of the afferents, including the other three tonically active units, responded only towards the limits of joint rotation. 3. As a group, the sample of joint afferents had a limited capacity to signal the direction of joint movement. Nine of the sixteen joint afferents sensitive to movement responded in two axes of angular displacement, and two responded in all three axes. In any one axis of rotation eight afferents were activated in both directions of movement. However, one afferent, associated with the interphalangeal joint of the thumb, responded uni-directionally throughout the physiological range of joint movement and was thereby capable of adequately encoding joint position and movement. 4. Twenty-one of twenty-nine slowly adapting and eleven of eighteen rapidly adapting cutaneous afferents tested were activated by joint movement, but only towards the limits of joint rotation; half of the thirty-two movement-sensitive afferents were bi-directionally responsive. Muscle spindle afferents responded to stresses applied to the joint only if the resulting passive movement stretched the parent muscle. 5. It is concluded that human joint afferents possess a very limited capacity to provide kinaesthetic information, and that this is likely to be of significance only when muscle spindle afferents cannot contribute to kinaesthesia.

J Physiol (Lond), 1988 vol. 402 pp. 347-361

Wang et al. (2007)

The proprioceptive representation of eye position in monkey primary somatosensory cortex.

Xiaolan Wang, Mingsha Zhang, Ian S Cohen, and Michael E Goldberg.

The cerebral cortex must have access to an eye position signal, as humans can report passive changes in eye position in total darkness, and visual responses in many cortical areas are modulated by eye position. The source of this signal is unknown. Here we demonstrate a representation of eye position in monkey primary somatosensory cortex, in the representation of the trigeminal nerve, near cells with a tactile representation of the contralateral brow. The neurons have eye position signals that increase monotonically with increasing orbital eccentricity from near the center of gaze, with directionally selectivity tuned in a Gaussian manner. All directions of eye position are represented in a single hemisphere. The signal is proprioceptive, because it can be obliterated by anesthetizing the contralateral orbit. It is not related to foveal or peripheral visual stimulation, and it represents the position of the eye in the head and not the angle of gaze in space.

Nat Neurosci, 2007 vol. 10 (5) pp. 640-646

Giboin et al. (2012)

Enhanced propriospinal excitation from hand muscles to wrist flexors during reach-to-grasp in humans.

Louis-Solal Giboin, Alexandra Lackmy-Vall〓e, David Burke, and V〓ronique Marchand-Pauvert.

In humans, propriospinal neurons located at midcervical levels receive peripheral and corticospinal inputs and probably participate in the control of grip tasks, but their role in reaching movements, as observed in cats and primates, is still an open question. The effect of ulnar nerve stimulation on flexor carpi radialis (FCR) motor evoked potential (MEP) was tested during reaching tasks and tonic wrist flexion. Significant MEP facilitation was observed at the end of reach during reach-to-grasp but not during grasp, reach-to-point, or tonic contractions. MEP facilitation occurred at a longer interstimulus interval than expected for convergence of corticospinal and afferent volleys at motoneuron level and was not paralleled by a change in the H-reflex. These findings suggest convergence of the two volleys at propriospinal level. Ulnar-induced MEP facilitation was observed when conditioning stimuli were at 0.75 motor response threshold (MT), but not 1 MT. This favors an increased excitability of propriospinal neurons rather than depression of their feedback inhibition, as has been observed during tonic power grip tasks. It is suggested that the ulnar-induced facilitation of FCR MEP during reach may be due to descending activation of propriospinal neurons, assisting the early recruitment of large motoneurons for rapid movement. Because the feedback inhibitory control is still open, this excitation can be truncated by cutaneous inputs from the palmar side of the hand during grasp, thus assisting movement termination. It is concluded that the feedforward activation of propriospinal neurons and their feedback control may be involved in the internal model, motor planning, and online adjustments for reach-to-grasp movements in humans.

J Neurophysiol, 2012 vol. 107 (2) pp. 532-543