JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (April 24, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.00793.2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/6/3123    most recent
00793.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, J. S
Right arrow Articles by Gdowski, G. T.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, J. S
Right arrow Articles by Gdowski, G. T.
Submitted on July 13, 2007
Accepted on April 23, 2008

Reweighting Sensory Signals to Maintain Head Stability: Adaptive Properties of the Cervicocollic Reflex

Jaimee S Reynolds1, David A. Blum2, and Greg Thomas Gdowski3*

1 Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States
2 Biomedical Engineering, Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States
3 Univ Rochester, United States; Univ Rochester

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: greg_gdowski{at}urmc.rochester.edu.

A major goal of this study was to characterize the cervicocollic reflexes (CCR) in awake squirrel monkeys and compare it to observations in cat. This was carried out by stabilizing the head in space while rotating the lower body. The magnitude and phase of the torque produced between the head and the restraint system was used as an indicator of the CCR. Many properties of the squirrel monkey’s CCR were found to be similar to those of the cat. The torque decreased as a function of frequency and amplitude. In addition, the static level of torque increased with head eccentricity. One difference was that the torque was 90x smaller in squirrel monkeys. Biomechanical differences, such as differences in head inertia could account for these differences. The second goal was to determine if the CCR was sensitive to increases in the head’s inertia. To test this, we increased the head’s inertia by a factor of 36 and allowed the reflexes to adapt by rotating the whole body while the head was free to move. The CCR was rapidly assessed by periodically stabilizing the head in space during whole body rotations. The magnitude of the torque increased by nearly 60% suggesting that the CCR may adapt when changes in the head’s inertia are imposed. Changes in the torque were also consistent with changes in head-movement kinematics during whole body rotation. This suggests that the collic reflexes may dynamically adapt in order to maintain the performance and kinematics of reflexive head movement.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.