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. 2. — Marking responses in CT and CM afferents. A: during electrical stimulation at 0.25 Hz, physiologically stimulating the CT unit (between electrical stimuli 3 and 4) increased the latency to electrical stimulation. The relative timings of sensory and electrical stimuli are shown on the original trace in B. C: extent of latency changes to 7.4-mN monofilament (open arrows) and brush (filled arrow) stimulation in a CT unit is related to the number of evoked spikes (numbers above arrows). Some shorter-latency spikes were seen, presumably originating from a shorter axonal branch, and were excluded from the analysis of latency shifts. D: number of evoked spikes correlated significantly with the observed latency changes in both CT (P < 0.001) and CM (P < 0.001) units, with significantly different slopes (P < 0.001). Inset: the same data for the unit shown in C (P < 0.001). Data presented are from 36 markings from 8 CTs and 16 markings from 8 CMs.