but there were naysayers:

30

Upload: aiko-perez

Post on 03-Jan-2016

23 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

But there were naysayers:. Maybe with high frequency (300cps), square pulse (instant rise) ESB you are giving un-natural activation of CNS pathways. Maybe by activating entire central pathways, you are also doing something that doesn’t happen in nature. Sooooooo……. We did an expewriment:. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: But there were naysayers:
Page 2: But there were naysayers:
Page 3: But there were naysayers:

But there were naysayers:

• Maybe with high frequency (300cps), square pulse (instant rise) ESB you are giving un-natural activation of CNS pathways.

• Maybe by activating entire central pathways, you are also doing something that doesn’t happen in nature. Sooooooo……

Page 4: But there were naysayers:

We did an expewriment:

• Much slower soft starting stimulation at low frequency

• &• We stimulated centrally the same

density of fibers in and outside the descending inhibition.

Page 5: But there were naysayers:
Page 6: But there were naysayers:

This was M & L’s very important theory of descending inhibition…(rather than suppression of higher pathways.

Page 7: But there were naysayers:
Page 8: But there were naysayers:
Page 9: But there were naysayers:
Page 10: But there were naysayers:
Page 11: But there were naysayers:
Page 12: But there were naysayers:

• Morphine had no effect on the aversive reaction threshold for the “Miss” at left (101% baseline). But it elevated the aversive reaction threshold of the “hit” to 320% baseline.

Page 13: But there were naysayers:
Page 14: But there were naysayers:
Page 15: But there were naysayers:
Page 16: But there were naysayers:

Is there a summation of effects…

• ….from 2 or more interacting sites?

• First study was behavioral:

Page 17: But there were naysayers:
Page 18: But there were naysayers:

But where were the summation(s)?

• This required a study of single neuron responses to see if one lower level could be activated to a greater by two higher places than by either alone.

Page 19: But there were naysayers:
Page 20: But there were naysayers:

Studying neurons in NRM presented us with a wrinkle:

• Fields & colleagues at UCSF found that there were 2 kinds of cells in NRM, On Cells and Off Cells.

• On cells turned on by pain, off by opiates.• Off cells ere the other way around: turned

off by pain, on by opiates.• Thus cells had to be On/Off classified

before studying summation effects. Classification done with tail flick in lightly anaesthetized rats, ala Fields.

Page 21: But there were naysayers:
Page 22: But there were naysayers:
Page 23: But there were naysayers:

So, we showed that different brainstem sites interacted at RM…• But was one site (e.g., PAG)

necessary for the other site (e.g., PGC) to function? This suggested a reversible lesion experiment:

Page 24: But there were naysayers:
Page 25: But there were naysayers:

Naturally naysayers said “nay”…

• “You are comparing a double injection (PGC-M + PAG-T) with a single one (PGC-M). “

• OK so we did the appropriate comparison to get the thing published:

Page 26: But there were naysayers:
Page 27: But there were naysayers:

So of course next, we had to see what the lesions did to on and off

cell responses.

Page 28: But there were naysayers:
Page 29: But there were naysayers:
Page 30: But there were naysayers:

Moral of the story:

• If you stay away from complex higher cognitive functions and study something simple (like sensory responsiveness, e.g., pain) then you can learn a lot with lesions & ESB