Insola A, Mazzone P, Scarnati E, Restuccia D, Valeriani M. Contribution of different somatosensory afferent input to subcortical somatosensory evoked potentials in humans.
Clin Neurophysiol 2021;
132:2357-2364. [PMID:
34454262 DOI:
10.1016/j.clinph.2021.06.033]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2021] [Revised: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 06/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the subcortical somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) to electrical stimulation of either muscle or cutaneous afferents.
METHODS
SEPs were recorded in 6 patients suffering from Parkinson's disease (PD) who underwent electrode implantation in the pedunculopontine (PPTg) nucleus area. We compared SEPs recorded from the scalp and from the intracranial electrode contacts to electrical stimuli applied to: 1) median nerve at the wrist, 2) abductor pollicis brevis motor point, and 3) distal phalanx of the thumb. Also the high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) were analysed.
RESULTS
After median nerve and pure cutaneous (distant phalanx of the thumb) stimulation, a P1-N1 complex was recorded by the intracranial lead, while the scalp electrodes recorded the short-latency far-field responses (P14 and N18). On the contrary, motor point stimulation did not evoke any low-frequency component in the PPTg traces, nor the N18 potential on the scalp. HFOs were recorded to stimulation of all modalities by the PPTg electrode contacts.
CONCLUSIONS
Stimulus processing within the cuneate nucleus depends on modality, since only the cutaneous input activates the complex intranuclear network possibly generating the scalp N18 potential.
SIGNIFICANCE
Our results shed light on the subcortical processing of the somatosensory input of different modalities.
Collapse