Cargando…

The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli

BACKGROUND: 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 com...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Zhao, Zumer, Johanna M, Lowenthal, Marianne E, Padberg, Jeff, Recanzone, Gregg H, Krubitzer, Leah A, Nagarajan, Srikantan S, Disbrow, Elizabeth A
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-4
_version_ 1782165244804595712
author Zhu, Zhao
Zumer, Johanna M
Lowenthal, Marianne E
Padberg, Jeff
Recanzone, Gregg H
Krubitzer, Leah A
Nagarajan, Srikantan S
Disbrow, Elizabeth A
author_facet Zhu, Zhao
Zumer, Johanna M
Lowenthal, Marianne E
Padberg, Jeff
Recanzone, Gregg H
Krubitzer, Leah A
Nagarajan, Srikantan S
Disbrow, Elizabeth A
author_sort Zhu, Zhao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Text
id pubmed-2652466
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26524662009-03-07 The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli Zhu, Zhao Zumer, Johanna M Lowenthal, Marianne E Padberg, Jeff Recanzone, Gregg H Krubitzer, Leah A Nagarajan, Srikantan S Disbrow, Elizabeth A BMC Neurosci Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. BioMed Central 2009-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC2652466/ /pubmed/19146670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-4 Text en Copyright © 2009 Zhu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhu, Zhao
Zumer, Johanna M
Lowenthal, Marianne E
Padberg, Jeff
Recanzone, Gregg H
Krubitzer, Leah A
Nagarajan, Srikantan S
Disbrow, Elizabeth A
The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
title 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_short The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
title_sort relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-10-4
work_keys_str_mv AT zhuzhao therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT zumerjohannam therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT lowenthalmariannee therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT padbergjeff therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT recanzonegreggh therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT krubitzerleaha therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT nagarajansrikantans therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT disbrowelizabetha therelationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT zhuzhao relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT zumerjohannam relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT lowenthalmariannee relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT padbergjeff relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT recanzonegreggh relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT krubitzerleaha relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT nagarajansrikantans relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli
AT disbrowelizabetha relationshipbetweenmagneticandelectrophysiologicalresponsestocomplextactilestimuli