| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
REPORT
Department of Physiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Submitted 17 July 2006; accepted in final form 2 October 2006
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
20% (range, 10–28%). These are the first recordings of their type obtained in human subjects and provide an initial glimpse into the voluntary control of hypoglossal motoneurons during tongue movements presumably instigated by activity in the motor cortex. |
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
; Kubota et al. 1975), and there is scant evidence for either Renshaw-like recurrent inhibition or monosynaptic excitatory stretch reflexes (Cooper 1953; Porter 1966). Because the tongue lacks a bony skeleton, tongue muscles make nontendinous insertions into lingual soft tissue and overlap and interdigitate extensively and at various orientations throughout the tongue (Abd-El-Malek 1938). This interdigitation severely limits the EMG assessment of motor unit activities within the body of the tongue and continues to pose a considerable technical challenge to in vivo force measures traditionally used in limb or digit muscles. In this study, we recorded single motor unit activities from a tongue protrudor muscle, the genioglossus (GG), and asked the following questions: 1) are the firing rates of GG motor units (MUs) comparable with those observed in other orofacial or limb muscles, 2) is interspike interval variability of GG MUs comparable with that observed in other orofacial or limb muscles, and 3) are individual GG MUs recruited at the same position in space on successive volitional protrusions. Importantly, we show that both the recruitment and rate modulation of GG MUs seem precisely tuned to tongue position.
|
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
EMG recording
Single motor unit action potentials were recorded with submental tungsten microelectrodes inserted transcutaneously into the GG (1- to 5-µm tip diameter, 250-µm shaft diameter, 10 M
at 1 KHz; Frederick Haer, Bowdoinham, ME). A surface electrode (4-mm-diameter Ag-AgCl) attached to the skin overlying the mastoid process served as an indifferent electrode, and both the intramuscular and surface electrodes were referenced to a ground strap placed around the upper arm. Motor unit potentials were amplified (1,000x), band-pass filtered (0.3–3 KHz; Grass Instruments, West Warwick, RI), and displayed on a storage oscilloscope and recorded on the Spike2 data acquisition and analysis program (CED, Cambridge, UK).
Intramuscular electrode placements were made 1.5 cm on either side of the midline at a distance 2–4 cm from the inferior margin of the mandible. To define the minimum depth for electrode insertion, the musculature of the floor of mouth initially was visualized by ultrasonography (Pro Sound 3500, Aloka, Tokyo, Japan), and the distance from the skin surface to the inferior border of the GG muscle was determined using an electronic caliper (Eastwood et al. 2003). The average depth to the inferior border of the genioglossus muscle was 13–15 mm, and MU activities were typically recorded at depths 18–24 mm from the skin surface.
Protocol
Subjects were seated upright in a dental chair with their head supported. Respiratory movements of the chest were monitored by a respiratory effort transducer (Biopac Systems, Goleta, CA) positioned around the rib cage at the level of the axilla.
Protrusion-retraction–related displacement of the tongue was detected by a battery powered isotonic transducer (Harvard Apparatus, Kent, UK). The transducer was connected to the tongue by a customized lever arm that engaged a thermoplastic housing (Fig. 1). The housing was affixed to the dorsum of the tongue in a two-step process. First, a foundation layer (polycarboxylate cement, ESPE America, Norristown, PA) was applied to the the distal portion of the tongue, after the tongue had been dried with gauze. After the foundation material had dried, cyano-acrylate glue (Ellman International, Oceanside, NY) was used to secure the housing to the foundation layer. At the termination of the experiment, the foundation layer could be readily removed from the tongue without causing discomfort to the subject. The coupling posed minimal impediment to movement, and subjects were able to swallow and speak during the experiment. The displacement signal was amplified (Grass) and displayed using the Spike2 data acquisition and analysis program (CED).
|
Each trial comprised a static holding task and three slow protrusions. Subjects were provided with both auditory and visual feedback (i.e., through an ongoing display of the spike record on a slowed time scale) of the discharge in both the static hold and protrusion tasks. For the holding task, subjects were instructed to maintain the tongue in the least-protruded position that was also associated with stable MU discharge (i.e., firing without interruption) for 20 s.
For slow protrusions, subjects first retracted the tongue (i.e., relative to the position during the holding task) and slowly advanced the tongue to recruit the target motor unit. Slow protrusion continued until the activity of additional motor units were detected on the electrode, at which point the subjects were instructed to slowly retract the tongue until discharge in the target motor unit ceased. Each protrusion/retrusion lasted 30 s and was repeated three times in quick succession. Trials in which swallows occurred between successive protrusions were excluded from the analysis.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using Spike2 and custom-designed software. Initially, motor units were discriminated using a template-matching algorithm based on waveform shape and amplitude. For an analysis of firing rate during protrusions, only those units whose activity could be followed in three protrusions were included. Recruitment firing rate was calculated from the first 10 interspike intervals during the tongue protrusion task, and peak firing rate was determined as the highest rate for 10 consecutive interspike intervals during the task. Mean values for recruitment and peak firing rates were calculated from the three trials that were recorded for each motor unit. The average GG firing rate was calculated as the reciprocal of the average interspike interval (ISI) over the entire period of tonic discharge associated with the holding task. Variability in ISIs during the holding task was estimated as the coefficient of variation (CV) of the ISIs, expressed as a percentage [CV = (SD ISI/mean ISI) x 100].
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|
; Macefield et al. 2000; Nordstrom et al. 1992).
On occasion, we encountered motor units that exhibited transient responses with remarkably high instantaneous firing rates up to 80 Hz. Whereas these units appeared to discharge sporadically or not at all during the slow tongue protrusions or the static holding task, they appeared to be robustly activated during rapid movements.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
; Monster and Chan 1977). While several possible causes of firing rate saturation have been discussed in the literature (Destexhe and Pare 1999; Heckman and Binder 1993; Taylor and Enoka 2004), the actual mechanisms underlying firing rate saturation have not yet been clearly delineated. Nevertheless, we showed that firing rate saturation is a prominent feature of hypoglossal motoneurons.
The average rate at which GG MUs were found to discharge tonically during the holding task was substantially higher than that reported for most limb motor units, which typically discharge at 6–10 Hz under similar conditions (Andreassen and Rosenfalck 1980; Hockensmith et al. 2005; Monster and Chan 1977). Because minimum firing rate is known to be inversely related to the duration of the afterhyperpolarization (AHP) after the action potential (Kernell 1965), perhaps human hypoglossal motoneurons possess briefer AHPs than do spinal motoneurons, as seems to be the case in the cat (Fung et al. 2000; Powers and Binder 2000).
Remarkably, GG MU recruitment seemed to be precisely related to a specific tongue position. For example, activity of the unit depicted in Fig. 2 reliably started within 0.5 mm of the same tongue position across four independent protrusions. Overall, recruitment of GG MUs was seen to occur throughout a wide range of tongue positions, with some units recruited at tongue positions less than the relaxed or "neutral" position (Fig. 3). Thus there is likely some degree of tonic motor unit activity in the GG even during presumed resting conditions.
Last, we encountered some motor units whose activity patterns were difficult to characterize within the parameters of our slow protrusion task. These units discharged transiently and at high firing rates during rapid tongue movements. Based on these preliminary observations, it seems possible that the GG motoneuron pool may comprise different populations of units, with some underlying more rapid tongue movements. Such task-dependent heterogeneity has been described previously in human masseter motor units wherein firing rate and firing rate variability varies with jaw position and direction of effort (Eriksson et al. 1984; McMillan and Hannam 1992). However, although these findings in GG MUs are suggestive of heterogeneity within the hypoglossal motoneuron pool, additional studies that characterize motor unit discharge during rapid tongue maneuvers are necessary before this can be confirmed.
Other studies of orofacial motor units
Although there are no data on hypoglossal MUs during the execution of volitional tasks, previous studies have characterized respiratory-related activities of GG MUs in human subjects (Bailey et al. 2005; Saboisky et al. 2006; Tsuiki et al. 2000). Available data show two respiratory-related MU populations, one that is active during inspiration and a second that is tonically active throughout the respiratory cycle (Saboisky et al. 2006; Tsuiki et al. 2000). The average discharge frequencies for these respiratory-related MUs range between 10 and 16 Hz. The peak frequencies attained by the inspiratory MUs range between 15 and 18 Hz (Bailey et al. 2005; Saboisky et al. 2006), whereas the range for the tonic units is somewhat higher, i.e., 22–24 Hz (Saboisky et al. 2006). Importantly, none of the GG MUs studied under the current protocol exhibited either phasic or tonic respiratory modulation. However, because all recordings were obtained with subjects seated in the upright position, the possibility that some or all of the MUs recorded during voluntary tongue protrusion may also exhibit respiratory type modulation in supine or head down position cannot be excluded.
Some data on the voluntary discharge behavior of motor units associated with other orofacial muscles are available. For example, firing rates in human lateral pterygoid and temporalis MUs, during jaw movements, seem comparable with these findings and range from 12 to 24 Hz (CV not reported) (Phanachet et al. 2002). Likewise, Luschei et al. (1999) recorded the activity of motor units in the laryngeal adductor muscle (the thyroarytenoid) during phonation and reported an average firing rate of 24 Hz (range, 5–30 Hz).
The discharge variability (CV) reported here in GG motor units (20.6%) during a volitional task is substantially higher than previous reports in orofacial muscles. For example, during phonatory tasks, >43% of the laryngeal motor units exhibit CVs of <10% (Luschei et al. 1999). Interestingly, the discharge variability in both inspiratory and tonic respiratory-related GG MUs is also very low (6%) (Bailey et al. 2005). The cause of this apparent task-related difference in discharge variability is not known and warrants further study.
|
|
GRANTS |
|---|
|
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: E. F. Bailey, Dept. of Physiology, College of Medicine, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0093 (E-mail: ebailey{at}u.arizona.edu)
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Andreassen S, Rosenfalck A. Regulation of the firing pattern of single motor units. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 43: 897–906, 1980.
Bailey EF, Fuglevand AJ, Fregosi RF. Respiratory-related discharge properties of genioglossal motor units in human subjects. FASEB J 19: A1283, 2005.
Clamann HP. Statistical analysis of motor unit firing patterns in a human skeletal muscle. Biophys J 9: 1233–1251, 1969.
Cooper S. Muscle spindles in the intrinsic muscles of the human tongue. J Physiol 122: 193–202, 1953.
Destexhe A, Pare D. Impact of network activity on the integrative properties of neocortical pyramidal neurons in vivo. J Neurophysiol 81: 1531–1547, 1999.
Eastwood PR, Allison GT, Shepherd KL, Szollosi I, Hillman DR. Heterogeneous activity of the human genioglossus muscle assessed by multiple bipolar fine-wire electrodes. J Appl Physiol 94: 1849–1858, 2003.
Eriksson PO, Stalberg E, Antoni L. Flexibility in motor-unit firing pattern in the human temporal and masseter muscles related to type of activation and location. Arch Oral Biol 29: 707–712, 1984.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Fung SJ, Yamuy J, Xi MC, Engelhardt JK, Morales FR, Chase MH. Changes in electrophysiological properties of cat hypoglossal motoneurons during carbachol-induced motor inhibition. Brain Res 885: 262–272, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Heckman CJ, Binder MD. Computer simulations of motoneuron firing rate modulation. J Neurophysiol 69: 1005–1008, 1993.
Hockensmith GB, Lowell SY, Fuglevand AJ. Common input across motor nuclei mediating precision grip in humans. J Neurosci 25: 4560–4564, 2005.
Johns RK, Fuglevand AJ. Evidence for intrinsic mechanisms underlying firing rate saturation in human motor neurons. Soc Neurosci Abstr 188.2, 2004.
Kernell D. Synaptic influence on the repetitive activity elicited in cat lumbosacral motoneurons by long-lasting injected currents. Acta Physiol Scand 63: 409–410, 1965.[Web of Science][Medline]
Kubota K, Negishi T, Masegi T. Topological distribution of muscle spindles in the human tongue and its significance in proprioception. Bull Tokyo Med Dent Univ 22: 235–242, 1975.[Medline]
Luschei ES, Ramig LO, Baker KL, Smith ME. Discharge characteristics of laryngeal single motor units during phonation in young and older adults and in persons with parkinson disease. J Neurophysiol 81: 2131–2139, 1999.
Macefield VG, Fuglevand AJ, Howell JN, Bigland-Ritchie B. Discharge behaviour of single motor units during maximal voluntary contractions of a human toe extensor. J Physiol 528: 227–234, 2000.
McMillan AS, Hannam AG. Task-related behavior of motor units in different regions of the human masseter muscle. Arch Oral Biol 37: 849–857, 1992.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Monster AW, Chan H. Isometric force production by motor units of extensor digitorum communis muscle in man. J Neurophysiol 40: 1432–1443, 1977.
Nordstrom MA, Fuglevand AJ, Enoka RM. Estimating the strength of common input to human motoneurons from the cross-correlogram. J Physiol 453: 547–574, 1992.
Phanachet I, Whittle T, Wanigaratne K, Murray GM. Functional properties of single motor units in the inferior head of human lateral pterygoid muscle: task firing rates. J Neurophysiol 88: 751–760, 2002.
Porter R. Lingual mechanoreceptors activated by muscle twitch. J Physiol 183: 101–111, 1966.
Powers RK, Binder MD. Relationship between the time course of the afterhyperpolarization and discharge variability in cat spinal motoneurones. J Physiol 528: 131–150, 2000.
Saboisky JP, Butler JE, Fogel RB, Taylor JL, Trinder JA, White DP, Gandevia SC. Tonic and phasic respiratory drives to human genioglossus motoneurons during breathing. J Neurophysiol 95: 2213–2221, 2006.
Taylor AM, Enoka RM. Quantification of the factors that influence discharge correlation in model motor neurons. J Neurophysiol 91: 796–814, 2004.
Tsuiki S, Ono T, Ishiwata Y, Kuroda T. Functional divergence of human genioglossus motor units with respiratory-related activity. Eur Respir J 15: 906–910, 2000.[Abstract]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Farina and D. Falla Discharge Rate of Sternohyoid Motor Units Activated With Surface EMG Feedback J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2009; 101(2): 624 - 632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Pittman and E. F. Bailey Genioglossus and Intrinsic Electromyographic Activities in Impeded and Unimpeded Protrusion Tasks J Neurophysiol, January 1, 2009; 101(1): 276 - 282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Eckert and A. Malhotra Pathophysiology of Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea Proceedings of the ATS, February 15, 2008; 5(2): 144 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Saboisky, J. E. Butler, D. K. McKenzie, R. B. Gorman, J. A. Trinder, D. P. White, and S. C. Gandevia Neural drive to human genioglossus in obstructive sleep apnoea J. Physiol., November 15, 2007; 585(1): 135 - 146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
