Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Latent addition in motor and sensory fibres of human peripheral nerve.

Open access
Bostock, H, Rothwell, J C·1997·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

1. The time constants of motor and sensory nerve fibres were studied in normal human ulnar nerves by the method of latent addition, using threshold tracking to follow the recovery of excitability after brief conditioning current pulses. The 60 microseconds test and conditioning stimuli were applied at the wrist, and the conditioning stimuli were set to 90, 60, 30, ‐30, ‐60 and ‐90% of the control threshold current. Compound muscle action potentials were recorded from abductor digiti minimi, and sensory nerve action potentials from the little finger. 2. Recovery from depolarizing conditioning pulses was slower than recovery from hyperpolarizing pulses and strongly dependent on conditioning pulse amplitude. The voltage dependence of latent addition was attributed to subthreshold activation of sodium channels (local response). 3. Motor and sensory nerve excitability generally recovered from ‐90% hyperpolarizing pulses as the sum of two exponential components, although the slow component was negligible in some motor nerves. The fast component (time constant 43.3 +/‐ 2.0 microseconds, mean +/‐ S.E.M., n = 9) was similar between motor and sensory fibres in the same subject. It showed no consistent voltage dependence, and was attributed to a passive input time constant of the fibres. The slow component of recovery from hyperpolarizing pulses was greater in sensory than in motor fibres and was voltage dependent: it could be greatly increased in motor and sensory fibres by steady depolarization. It was attributed to a regenerative membrane current, active at the resting potential in sensory and at least some motor nerves. 4. The latent addition responses were compared with the computed responses of four theoretical models. Both motor and sensory responses were well fitted by a model in which a fraction of the sodium channels (less in motor than in sensory fibres) were activated at potentials 20 mV more negative than normal and at half the normal rate, and did not inactivate. 5. It is concluded that the differences in latent addition between motor and sensory fibres are primarily due to differences in non‐classical, voltage‐dependent ion channels, active close to the resting potential. These "threshold channels' may help to account for the longer strength‐duration time constant of sensory fibres, for their lower rheobase, and for their greater tendency to fire repetitively.

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.1997.sp021857

Cites

26 of 26 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

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Bostock, H., & Rothwell, J. C.
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-01
Volume
498
Issue
1
Pages
277-294
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W2031422758
Cited by
317
References
26
FWCI
3.83
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: Latent addition in motor and sensory fibres of human peripheral nerve. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1113/jphysiol.1997.sp021857
The paper
Bostock, H., & Rothwell, J. C. (1997). Latent addition in motor and sensory fibres of human peripheral nerve. The Journal of Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1997.sp021857

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.