4.5 Article

Control of hypoglossal motoneurones during naturally occurring sleep and wakefulness in the intact, unanaesthetized cat: a field potential study

期刊

JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 469-474

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.12137

关键词

atonia; excitability; genioglossus; obstructive sleep apnea; rapid eye movement sleep; sleep-disordered breathing

资金

  1. [1\01BX00819]
  2. [TGS-109219]
  3. [1R01HL116845]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present electrophysiological study was designed to determine the discharge threshold of hypoglossal motoneurones during naturally occurring states of sleep and wakefulness in the intact, unanaesthetized cat. The antidromic field potential, which reflects the net level of membrane excitability of motoneurones and therefore their discharge threshold, was recorded in the hypoglossal nucleus following stimulation of the hypoglossal nerve. The amplitude of the antidromic field potential was larger during wakefulness and non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep compared with REM sleep. There was no significant difference in the amplitude of the field potential when wakefulness was compared with NREM sleep (P = 0.103, df = 3, t = 2.324). However, there was a 46% reduction in amplitude during REM sleep compared with NREM sleep (P < 0.001, df = 10, t = 6.421) or wakefulness (P < 0.01, df = 4, t = -4.598). These findings indicate that whereas the excitability of motoneurones that comprise the hypoglossal motor pool is relatively constant during wakefulness and NREM sleep, their excitability is significantly reduced during REM sleep. This state-dependent pattern of control of hypoglossal motoneurones during REM sleep is similar to that reported for motoneurones in other motor nuclei at all levels of the neuraxis. The decrease in the evoked response of hypoglossal motoneurones, which reflects a significant increase in the discharge threshold of individual motoneurones, results in atonia of the lingual and related muscles during REM sleep.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据