|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 3. Augmentation caused an increase in EJP amplitudes even when stimuli were
suspended for several seconds. (A) Original recording of the electrical
response of the gm6 muscle to 20 Hz stimulation of LG with 10 trains of
stimuli. Inter-train interval 4 s. The responses to the first, fifth and tenth
stimulus trains are shown. Dotted lines indicate maximum depolarization and
amplitude of test EJP. (B) Test EJPs increased in amplitude with repeated
train stimulation. EJP amplitudes were normalized to the test EJP after the
first stimulus train and plotted over the number of the stimulus train. 20 Hz
stimulations were used. For further details and N numbers, see
Table 1. Significances are
shown for the test EJP after the tenth stimulus train.
Significantly different from amplitude of test EJP after
the first stimulus train, P<0.05. **Significantly different from
amplitude of test EJP after the tenth stimulus train with longer inter-train
durations, P<0.01. *Significantly different from amplitude of test
EJP after the tenth stimulus train with longer inter-train durations,
P<0.05. Significantly different from
amplitude of test EJP after the tenth stimulus train with 32 s inter-train
duration, P<0.05. (C) The first, fifth and tenth EJP increased in
amplitude when stimulus trains (20 Hz) were repeated. EJP amplitudes were
normalized to the tenth EJP of the first stimulus train. Average of
N=11 animals. (D) Development of the amplitude of the tenth EJP
during repeated train stimulation (20 Hz) with inter-train intervals of
1–32 s. EJP amplitudes were normalized to the tenth EJP of the first
stimulus train. Significances as in B. For details and N numbers, see
Table 2. (E) Exponential decay
function fit of the augmentation index A (as revealed by the normalized
amplitude of the tenth EJP of the tenth stimulus train during 20 Hz
stimulation) over inter-train interval. Average of nine animals (32 s
inter-train interval) and 11 animals (all other intervals), respectively.
Significantly different from A of longer inter-train
interval (P<0.05). (F) Decrement of EJP amplitudes after the end
of a series of 10 train stimulations (20 Hz). EJPs were elicited at delays of
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 s after the end (arrow) of the last stimulus
train. Average of three sweeps. (G) Exponential decay function fit of
decrement of EJP amplitudes after the tenth stimulus train (20 Hz). Average of
N=14 animals. Arrow, first EJP of the first stimulus train (control
EJP). For details see Table 3.
Dotted line indicates amplitude of control EJP. **Significantly different from
control, P<0.01. *Significantly different from control,
P<0.05. Significantly different from EJP
amplitudes with longer delays, P<0.05. (H) Development of EJP
amplitudes (average of N=11 animals) during repetitive train
stimulation (20 Hz). All EJPs of all stimulus trains are shown. Amplitudes
were normalized to the last EJP of the first stimulus train. After the third
stimulus train, no further enhancement of EJP amplitudes was obtained. (I)
Within-train facilitation of EJP amplitudes is affected by augmentation. The
amplitudes of all EJPs in each stimulus train are shown. Amplitudes were
normalized separately to the last EJP of each particular stimulus train (20
Hz). Average of N=11 animals. F, facilitation index.
|
