Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 1973 Aug;232(3):427–452. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010279

Stimulus—response functions of rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors in the human glabrous skin area

M Knibestöl
PMCID: PMC1350502  PMID: 4759677

Abstract

1. Single unit impulses were recorded from the ulnar and median nerves of awake human subjects with tungsten electrodes inserted percutaneously in the upper arm.

2. Forty-nine rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors with receptive fields in the glabrous skin area were studied. Thirty-nine units had small receptive fields with distinct borders (RA-receptors) while ten units had large fields with indistinct borders (PC-receptors).

3. The afferent response to stimuli of varying indentation amplitude and velocity of indentation, was analysed.

4. Amplitude thresholds varied from 0·05 to 1·65 mm for the RA-receptors. For the PC-receptors amplitude thresholds ranged from less than 0·05 to 1·95 mm.

5. Velocity thresholds varied for the RA-receptors from 0·4 to 39·3 mm/sec, and for the PC-receptors from 0·5 to 19·6 mm/sec.

6. The conduction velocities of the afferents were all in the A α—β range. For the RA-receptors the conduction velocities ranged from 26 to 91 m/sec (mean = 55·3 ± 3·4), and for PC-receptors the range was from 34 to 61 m/sec (mean = 46·9 ± 3·6).

7. The nerve impulse frequency as a function of indentation velocity was analysed for nineteen RA-receptors and four PC-receptors. A hyperbolic log tangent function of the type first introduced by Naka & Rushton (1966) in studies on S-potentials in the fish retina was found to be the best description of the stimulus—response function for sixteen RA-receptors and two PC-receptors. For the remaining units a pure logarithmic function was the best description. However, the logarithmic function may be, as found in the present study, a special case of the more general log tanh function.

Full text

PDF
427

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brown A. G., Iggo A. A quantitative study of cutaneous receptors and afferent fibres in the cat and rabbit. J Physiol. 1967 Dec;193(3):707–733. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1967.sp008390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burgess P. R., Petit D., Warren R. M. Receptor types in cat hairy skin supplied by myelinated fibers. J Neurophysiol. 1968 Nov;31(6):833–848. doi: 10.1152/jn.1968.31.6.833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. CAUNA N. Nature and functions of the papillary ridges of the digital skin. Anat Rec. 1954 Aug;119(4):449–468. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091190405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Catton W. T. A comparison of the responses of frog skin receptors to mechanical and electrical stimulation. J Physiol. 1966 Nov;187(1):23–33. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp008073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. GRAY J. A. B., MALCOLM J. L. The initiation of nerve impulses by mesenteric Pacinian corpuscles. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1950;137(886):96–114. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1950.0026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Harrington T., Merzenich M. M. Neural coding in the sense of touch: human sensations of skin indentation compared with the responses of slowly adapting mechanoreceptive afferents innvervating the hairy skin of monkeys. Exp Brain Res. 1970;10(3):251–264. doi: 10.1007/BF00235049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Iggo A., Muir A. R. The structure and function of a slowly adapting touch corpuscle in hairy skin. J Physiol. 1969 Feb;200(3):763–796. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jänig W. Morphology of rapidly and slowly adapting mechanoreceptors in the hairless skin of the cat's hind foot. Brain Res. 1971 May 7;28(2):217–231. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(71)90656-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jänig W., Schmidt R. F., Zimmermann M. Single unit responses and the total afferent outflow from the cat's foot pad upon mechanical stimulation. Exp Brain Res. 1968;6(2):100–115. doi: 10.1007/BF00239165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kenton B., Kruger L., Woo M. Two classes of slowly adapting mechanoreceptor fibres in reptile cutaneous nerve. J Physiol. 1971 Jan;212(1):21–44. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1971.sp009308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Knibestöl M., Vallbo A. B. Single unit analysis of mechanoreceptor activity from the human glabrous skin. Acta Physiol Scand. 1970 Oct;80(2):178–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1970.tb04783.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. LOEWENSTEIN W. R. Excitation and inactivation in a receptor membrane. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1961 Sep 6;94:510–534. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1961.tb35556.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lindblom U., Lund L. The discharge from vibration-sensitive receptors in the monkey foot. Exp Neurol. 1966 Aug;15(4):401–417. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(66)90138-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lindblom U. Properties of touch receptors in distal glabrous skin of the monkey. J Neurophysiol. 1965 Sep;28(5):966–985. doi: 10.1152/jn.1965.28.5.966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lipetz L. E. The transfer functions of sensory intensity in the nervous system. Vision Res. 1969 Oct;9(10):1205–1234. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(69)90110-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lynn B. The form and distribution of the receptive fields of Pacinian corpuscles found in and around the cat's large foot pad. J Physiol. 1971 Sep;217(3):755–771. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1971.sp009598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lynn B. The nature and location of certain phasic mechanoreceptors in the cat's foot. J Physiol. 1969 May;201(3):765–773. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Naka K. I., Rushton W. A. S-potentials from colour units in the retina of fish (Cyprinidae). J Physiol. 1966 Aug;185(3):536–555. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp008001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Pubols L. M., Pubols B. H., Jr, Munger B. L. Functional properties of mechanoreceptors in glabrous skin of the raccoon's forepaw. Exp Neurol. 1971 May;31(2):165–182. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(71)90185-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Quilliam T. A., Ridley A. The receptor community in the finger tip. J Physiol. 1971 Jul;216(1):15P–17P. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. STILWELL D. L., Jr The innervation of deep structures of the hand. Am J Anat. 1957 Jul;101(1):75–99. doi: 10.1002/aja.1001010105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Stratten W. P., Ogden T. E. Spectral sensitivity of the barnacle, Balanus amphitrite. J Gen Physiol. 1971 Apr;57(4):435–447. doi: 10.1085/jgp.57.4.435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Talbot W. H., Darian-Smith I., Kornhuber H. H., Mountcastle V. B. The sense of flutter-vibration: comparison of the human capacity with response patterns of mechanoreceptive afferents from the monkey hand. J Neurophysiol. 1968 Mar;31(2):301–334. doi: 10.1152/jn.1968.31.2.301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Vallbo A. B., Hagbarth K. E. Activity from skin mechanoreceptors recorded percutaneously in awake human subjects. Exp Neurol. 1968 Jul;21(3):270–289. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(68)90041-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. WERNER G., MOUNTCASTLE V. B. NEURAL ACTIVITY IN MECHANORECEPTIVE CUTANEOUS AFFERENTS: STIMULUS-RESPONSE RELATIONS, WEBER FUNCTIONS, AND INFORMATION TRANSMISSION. J Neurophysiol. 1965 Mar;28:359–397. doi: 10.1152/jn.1965.28.2.359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES