Defensive peripersonal space: the blink reflex evoked by hand stimulation is increased when the hand is near the face

2012 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 880-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Sambo ◽  
M. Liang ◽  
G. Cruccu ◽  
G. D. Iannetti
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stem ◽  
Median Nerve ◽  
Safety Margin ◽  
Peripersonal Space ◽  
Blink Reflex ◽  
Hand Position ◽  
Electromyographic Activity ◽  
The Face ◽  
Stimulation Of

Electrical stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist may elicit a blink reflex [hand blink reflex (HBR)] mediated by a neural circuit at brain stem level. As, in a Sherringtonian sense, the blink reflex is a defensive response, in a series of experiments we tested, in healthy volunteers, whether and how the HBR is modulated by the proximity of the stimulated hand to the face. Electromyographic activity was recorded from the orbicularis oculi, bilaterally. We observed that the HBR is enhanced when the stimulated hand is inside the peripersonal space of the face, compared with when it is outside, irrespective of whether the proximity of the hand to the face is manipulated by changing the position of the arm ( experiment 1) or by rotating the head while keeping the arm position constant ( experiment 3). Experiment 2 showed that such HBR enhancement has similar magnitude when the participants have their eyes closed. Experiments 4 and 5 showed, respectively, that the blink reflex elicited by the electrical stimulation of the supraorbital nerve, as well as the N20 wave of the somatosensory evoked potentials elicited by the median nerve stimulation, are entirely unaffected by hand position. Taken together, our results provide compelling evidence that the brain stem circuits mediating the HBR in humans undergo tonic and selective top-down modulation from higher order cortical areas responsible for encoding the location of somatosensory stimuli in external space coordinates. These findings support the existence of a “defensive” peripersonal space, representing a safety margin advantageous for survival.

scholarly journals A geometric model of defensive peripersonal space

2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 218-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Bufacchi ◽  
M. Liang ◽  
L. D. Griffin ◽  
G. D. Iannetti
Keyword(s):  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Geometric Model ◽  
Peripersonal Space ◽  
Blink Reflex ◽  
The Body ◽  
Hand Position ◽  
Body Area ◽  
Empirical Observation ◽  
Spatial Features ◽  
The Face

Potentially harmful stimuli occurring within the defensive peripersonal space (DPPS), a protective area surrounding the body, elicit stronger defensive reactions. The spatial features of the DPPS are poorly defined and limited to descriptive estimates of its extent along a single dimension. Here we postulated a family of geometric models of the DPPS, to address two important questions with respect to its spatial features: What is its fine-grained topography? How does the nervous system represent the body area to be defended? As a measure of the DPPS, we used the strength of the defensive blink reflex elicited by electrical stimulation of the hand (hand-blink reflex, HBR), which is reliably modulated by the position of the stimulated hand in egocentric coordinates. We tested the goodness of fit of the postulated models to HBR data from six experiments in which we systematically explored the HBR modulation by hand position in both head-centered and body-centered coordinates. The best-fitting model indicated that 1) the nervous system's representation of the body area defended by the HBR can be approximated by a half-ellipsoid centered on the face and 2) the DPPS extending from this area has the shape of a bubble elongated along the vertical axis. Finally, the empirical observation that the HBR is modulated by hand position in head-centered coordinates indicates that the DPPS is anchored to the face. The modeling approach described in this article can be generalized to describe the spatial modulation of any defensive response.

scholarly journals Transcutaneous trigeminal nerve stimulation modulates the hand blink reflex

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Beniamina Mercante ◽  
Nicola Loi ◽  
Francesca Ginatempo ◽  
Monica Biggio ◽  
Andrea Manca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Nerve ◽  
Trigeminal Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Blink Reflex ◽  
Infraorbital Nerve ◽  
Hand Position ◽  
Median Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Face

AbstractThe hand-blink reflex (HBR) is a subcortical response, elicited by the electrical stimulation of the median nerve, whose magnitude is specifically modulated according to the spatial properties of the defensive peripersonal space (DPPS) of the face. For these reasons, the HBR is commonly used as a model to assess the DPPS of the face. Little is known on the effects induced by the activation of cutaneous afferents from the face on the DPPS of the face. Therefore, we tested the effect of non-painful transcutaneous trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS) on the amplitude of the HBR. Fifteen healthy participants underwent HBR recording before and after 20 min of sham- and real-TNS delivered bilaterally to the infraorbital nerve in two separate sessions. The HBR was recorded bilaterally from the orbicularis oculi muscles, following non-painful median nerve stimulation at the wrist. The HBR amplitude was assessed in the “hand‐far” and “hand‐near” conditions, relative to the hand position in respect to the face. The amplitudes of the hand-far and hand-near HBR were measured bilaterally before and after sham- and real-TNS. Real-TNS significantly reduced the magnitude of the HBR, while sham-TNS had no significant effect. The inhibitory effect of TNS was of similar extent on both the hand-far and hand-near components of the HBR, which suggests an action exerted mainly at brainstem level.

scholarly journals Modulation of exteroceptive electromyographic responses in defensive peripersonal space

2019 ◽  
Vol 121 (4) ◽  
pp. 1111-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viviana Versace ◽  
Stefania Campostrini ◽  
Luca Sebastianelli ◽  
Leopold Saltuari ◽  
Markus Kofler
Keyword(s):  
Silent Period ◽  
Peripersonal Space ◽  
Blink Reflex ◽  
The Body ◽  
Electromyographic Activity ◽  
Sensory Afferents ◽  
Eyes Closed ◽  
Cutaneous Silent Period ◽  
The Face ◽  
Long Loop Reflex

The cutaneous silent period (CSP) to noxious finger stimulation constitutes a robust spinal inhibitory reflex that protects the hand from injury. In certain conditions, spinal inhibition is interrupted by a brief burst-like electromyographic activity, dividing the CSP into two inhibitory phases (I1 and I2). This excitatory component is termed long-loop reflex (LLR) and is presumed to be transcortical in origin. Efficient defense from environmental threats requires sensorimotor integration between multimodal sensory afferents and planning of defensive movements. In the defensive peripersonal space (DPPS) immediately surrounding the body, we interact with objects and persons with increased alertness. We investigated whether CSP differs when the stimulated hand is in the DPPS of the face compared with a distant position. Furthermore, we investigated the possible role of vision in CSP modulation. Fifteen healthy volunteers underwent CSP testing with the handheld either within 5 cm from the nose (near) or away from the body (far). Recordings were obtained from first dorsal interosseous muscle following index (D2) or little finger (D5) stimulation with varying intensities. A subgroup of subjects underwent CSP recordings in near and far conditions, both with eyes open and with eyes closed. No inhibitory CSP parameter differed between stimulation in near and far conditions. LLRs occurring following D2 stimulation were significantly larger in near than far conditions at all stimulus intensities, irrespective of subjects seeing their hand. Similar to the hand-blink reflex, spinally organized protective reflexes may be modulated by corticospinal facilitatory input when the hand enters the DPPS of the face. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The present findings demonstrate for the first time that a spinally organized protective reflex, the cutaneous silent period (CSP), may be modulated by top-down corticospinal facilitatory input when the stimulated hand enters the defensive peripersonal space (DPPS) of the face. In particular, the cortically mediated excitatory long-loop reflex, which may interrupt the CSP, is facilitated when the stimulated hand is in the DPPS, irrespective of visual control over the hand. No spinal inhibitory CSP parameter differs significantly in or outside the DPPS.

scholarly journals Electrical stimulation of the auditory brain stem structure in deafened adults

1987 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie S. Eisenberg ◽  
Albert A. Maltan ◽  
Franco Portillo ◽  
Phil Mobley ◽  
William F. House
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stem ◽  
Auditory Brain Stem ◽  
Stem Structure ◽  
Stimulation Of

Brain stem responses to electrical stimulation of ventral vagal gastric fibers

1989 ◽  
Vol 257 (1) ◽  
pp. G24-G29
Author(s):  
W. D. Barber ◽  
C. S. Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Brain Stem ◽  
Time Of Arrival ◽  
Neuronal Responses ◽  
Proximal Stomach ◽  
Afferent Fibers ◽  
Sensory Modalities ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Stimulation Of

The brain stem neuronal responses to electrical stimulation of gastric branches of the ventral vagal trunk serving the proximal stomach were localized and evaluated in anesthetized cats. The responses were equally distributed bilaterally in the region of nucleus solitarius in the caudal brain stem. The mean latency of the response was 289 +/- 46 (SD) ms, which translated into a conduction velocity of less than 1 m/s based on the distance between the stimulating and recording electrodes. The responses consisted of single and multiple spikes that showed slight variability in the latency, indicating orthodromic activation via a synapse in approximately 98% of the responses recorded. Forty two percent of the units tested showed evidence of convergence of input from vagal afferent fibers in different branches of the ventral vagal trunk that served the proximal stomach. The resultant activity pattern of the unitary response appeared to be the product of 1) the gastric sensory input or modality conveyed by the afferent source and 2) the time of arrival and diversity of modalities served by other gastric afferents impinging on the unit. This provides a mechanism capable of responding on the basis of specific sensory modalities that dynamically reflect ongoing events monitored and conveyed by other gastric afferents in the region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document