HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 100/2/681    most recent 01322.2007v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Masri, R. Articles by Keller, A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Masri, R. Articles by Keller, A.

Encoding of Stimulus Frequency and Sensor Motion in the Posterior Medial Thalamic Nucleus

¹Program in Neuroscience and Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore; and ²Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland

Submitted 7 December 2007; accepted in final form 29 January 2008

In all sensory systems, information is processed along several parallel streams. In the vibrissa-to-barrel cortex system, these include the lemniscal system and the lesser-known paralemniscal system. The posterior medial nucleus (POm) is the thalamic structure associated with the latter pathway. Previous studies suggested that POm response latencies are positively correlated with stimulation frequency and negatively correlated with response duration, providing a basis for a phase locked loop-temporal decoding of stimulus frequency. We tested this hypothesis by analyzing response latencies of POm neurons, in both awake and anesthetized rats, to vibrissae deflections at frequencies between 0.3 and 11 Hz. We found no significant, systematic correlation between stimulation frequency and the latency or duration of POm responses. We obtained similar findings from recording in awake rats, in rats under different anesthetics, and in anesthetized rats in which the reticular activating system was stimulated. These findings suggest that stimulus frequency is not reliably reflected in response latency of POm neurons. We also tested the hypothesis that POm neurons respond preferentially to sensor motion, that is, they respond to whisking in air, without contacts. We recorded from awake, head-restrained rats while monitoring vibrissae movements. All POm neurons responded to passive whisker deflections, but none responded to noncontact whisking. Thus like their counterparts in the trigeminal ganglion, POm neurons may not reliably encode whisking kinematics. These observations suggest that POm neurons might not faithfully encode vibrissae inputs to provide reliable information on vibrissae movements or contacts.