JN Miami Valley Hospital
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol 38: 250-256, 1975;
0022-3077/75 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ebersole, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Levine, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ebersole, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Levine, R. A.

Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol 38, Issue 2 250-256, Copyright © 1975 by APS


ARTICLES

Abnormal neuronal responses during evolution of a penicillin epileptic focus in cat visual cortex

J. S. Ebersole and R. A. Levine

After defining the receptive fields of single units in cortical area 17 of anesthetized cats, recurrent on-off stimulation with bars of light of optimal configuration win from a second micropipette; Progressively, three distinct alterations of neuronal activity developed. The most longlasting and usually the earliest abnormality was an increase in the number and frequency of spikes comprising a neuron's response to stimuli that were effective prior to iontophoresis. This enhanced physiologic response (EPR) could be elicited from a cell independently of the discharge activity of an induced focus, but only with stimuli appropriate for the cell's receptive field. With additional iontophoresis an entirely new response developed, which was consistent with an extracellular paroxysmal depolarization shift (PDS). This high-frequency burst of spikes appeared only in association with an ECoG interictal potential. It could be triggered, however, by stimuli which were previously effective or ineffective, as well as occur spontaneously. Characteristics which further distinguished the PDS from EPR included a longer and more-variable latency, a longer recovery period, and a different sensitivity to changes of stimulus intensity. A period of response inhibition also accompanied each interictal potential and persisted with a variable duration afterward. It was most noticeable as an interruption in the activity of tonically responding neurons and was often present before the cell began to generate PDSs. It was concluded that the EPR represents a direct effect of penicillin on the cell or its immediate synaptic connections, while the PDS appears dependent on the altered interactions within a population of such affected cells. The inhibitory phenomenon, in addition, seems a result of projected influences from cells more fully involved with the developing focus. A dynamic model of the EPR-PDS relationship is proposed.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online