spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PIDDINGTON, R. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by PIDDINGTON, R. W.
Journal of Experimental Biology 55,569-584 (1971)
Published by Company of Biologists 1971


Central Control of Auditory Input in the Goldfish : I. Effect of Shocks to the Midbrain

R. W. PIDDINGTON 1

1 Neurobiology Unit, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Department of Neurosciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California

1. Shocks applied to three midbrain regions reversibly suppressed the click-evoked action potential at the medulla. Clicks in air did not activate lateral-line fibres.

2. Only one midbrain region, the torus semicircularis, showed a distinct afferent auditory response; the other two regions (anterior optic tectum and midbrain below) were used to avoid unwanted antidromic activation of medullary afferents by shocks to the torus.

3. Muscular action on the mechanical auditory pathway was excluded by showing that shocks had no effect on the saccular microphonic or receptor potential.

4. The results are consistent with the action of a descending inhibitory pathway that suppresses auditory input either at the medulla or at the sacculus.

5. One brief shock is effective, but the system is mainly dependent on temporal and spatial summation.

6. The dependency on click intensity may be complex, both high-threshold and low-threshold fibres can be inhibited and occasionally a component of the compound spike shows facilitation instead.

7. Shocks affect the two-click recovery cycle in a complex manner. Recovery is enhanced if the clicks are presented less than 40 msec after the shocks but depressed at longer intervals, even beyond 500 msec.

Submitted on March 29, 1971







© The Company of Biologists Ltd 1971