Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2017 Jan 25;117(4):1608–1614. doi: 10.1152/jn.00939.2016

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2017 the American Physiological Society

Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY 4.0: © the American Physiological Society.

PMC Copyright notice

Fig. 1. — Physiological properties of CM and CT afferents. A and B: indicators of receptive field locations of CT (A) and CM (B) units on the arm. Arrow indicates 2 CT units with overlapping receptive field locations. C and D: responses to brushing and suprathreshold indentation from a CT (monofilament threshold 0.04 mN) (C) and a CM (monofilament threshold 12 mN) (D) and overlaid spikes from all displayed responses. Spike times are marked above the trace. Multiunit discharges occurred in myelinated afferents during the brush stimulation (C and D), with a long-latency response in the CT unit, with a typical afterdischarge outlasting the stimulus (C), and no response in the CM unit (D). E: a bimodal distribution of monofilament thresholds was seen, but with some overlap between CTs and CMs. F and G: intracutaneous electrical thresholds (F) and conduction velocities (G) were not significantly different between CTs and CMs. H: spike shape measurements. I and J: there was no significant difference between CT and CM spike widths (I), but spike amplitude was significantly smaller in CTs (J; *P < 0.05).