4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

WHAT THE WHISKERS TELL THE BRAIN

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE
卷 368, 期 -, 页码 95-108

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.08.005

关键词

whisker system; somatosensory system; neural coding; trigeminal ganglion; barrel cortex; whisker mechanics

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L007282/1, BB/P021603/1]
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/L01064X7/1, MR/P005659/1]
  3. BBSRC [BB/P021603/1, BB/L007282/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. MRC [MR/P005659/1, MR/L01064X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L007282/1, BB/P021603/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [MR/P005659/1, MR/L01064X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fundamental question in the investigation of any sensory system is what physical signals drive its sensory neurons during natural behavior. Surprisingly, in the whisker system, it is only recently that answers to this question have emerged. Here, we review the key developments, focussing mainly on the first stage of the ascending pathway - the primary whisker afferents (PWAs). We first consider a biomechanical framework, which describes the fundamental mechanical forces acting on the whiskers during active sensation. We then discuss technical progress that has allowed such mechanical variables to be estimated in awake, behaving animals. We discuss past electrophysi-ological evidence concerning how PWAs function and reinterpret it within the biomechanical framework. Finally, we consider recent studies of PWAs in awake, behaving animals and compare the results to related studies of the cortex. We argue that understanding 'what the whiskers tell the brain' sheds valuable light on the computational functions of downstream neural circuits, in particular, the barrel cortex. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: [SI: Barrel Cortex]. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IBRO.

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