Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The post‐natal development of cutaneous afferent fibre input and receptive field organization in the rat dorsal horn.

Open access
Fitzgerald, M·1985·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

The responses evoked in lumbar dorsal horn cells by both natural and electrical hind‐limb skin stimulation were recorded in the spinal cord of rat pups aged 0‐15 days under urethane anaesthesia. The input volley was recorded on the L4 dorsal root and consisted of two separate waves from birth. Latency and threshold measurements were consistent with these two waves being immature A (myelinated fibre) waves and C (non‐myelinated fibre) waves. On the first 3 days of life background activity of cells in the dorsal horn was low and evoked discharges were sluggish. On electrical stimulation of the skin, neonatal dorsal horn cells frequently responded with only 1 or 2 impulses per input volley with long central delays of up to 20 ms. Synaptic linkage appeared weak and many cells failed to follow stimulation rates of 5 Hz. Natural skin stimulation showed that the majority of cells at days 0‐3 responded to pinching the skin only. The development of responses evoked by C fibres in the dorsal horn was delayed compared to that of responses evoked by A fibres. Short and long latency responses corresponding to the early A and late C afferent input volleys could be recorded in the superficial laminae (I, II and III) of the dorsal horn from day 0, but in the deeper laminae only early short latency A responses were evoked until the age of day 7‐8. After this time, a long latency C response also appeared and increased in strength with age. Convergence of low and high threshold inputs onto dorsal horn cells was rare at birth but increased gradually over the following two weeks. Receptive field areas, mapped by natural mechanical stimulation of skin, were large at birth and decreased in size with age. At birth the mean receptive field area was 14.2% of the total hind‐limb area whereas at day 15 it was 3.6%. This fall in size was particularly marked in cells of the deep dorsal horn. Pinching or brushing the receptive field of many neonatal dorsal horn cells resulted in long‐lasting after‐discharges (30‐90 s) which on days 0‐3 could be more pronounced than the initial evoked response. The duration and amplitude of these responses decreased with age. Repetitive electrical skin stimulation of the receptive fields of these cells produced 'wind‐up' and prolonged after‐discharge. Ipsilateral, contralateral and distant inhibitory components to receptive fields were observed from day 0.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1113/jphysiol.1985.sp015725

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 222

Metadata

Authors
Fitzgerald, M.
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1985-07
Volume
364
Issue
1
Pages
1-18
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W2117632186
Cited by
222
References
1
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The post‐natal development of cutaneous afferent fibre input and receptive field organization in the rat dorsal horn. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1113/jphysiol.1985.sp015725
The paper
Fitzgerald, M. (1985). The post‐natal development of cutaneous afferent fibre input and receptive field organization in the rat dorsal horn. The Journal of Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1985.sp015725

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.