Cited by 179Biochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesIon Channels and ReceptorsOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies

Organization of orosensory responses in the nucleus of the solitary tract of rat

Travers, S. P., Norgren, R.·1995·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

1. The receptive field and topographic organization of single orosensory neurons located throughout the rostral division of the nucleus of the solitary tract (rNST) was studied by determining their responsiveness to gustatory stimulation of the entire oral cavity and to gustatory and mechanical stimulation of restricted oral regions. The rNST contained roughly equal numbers of two distinct populations of orosensory neurons, one responsive exclusively to oral mechanical stimulation (M neurons), the other to gustatory stimulation (G neurons). Some G neurons also responded to oral somatosensory stimuli, but usually less vigorously than to gustatory stimuli. The distribution of these two populations of rNST neurons was topographically organized: G neurons were centered anteriorly and medially to M neurons. 2. Eight of 44 G neurons responded only when the whole oral cavity was stimulated, but the remaining 36 cells responded to circumscribed stimulation of taste buds on the anterior tongue (AT), foliate papillae of the posterior tongue, nasoincisor ducts, retromolar mucosa (RM), or soft palate (SP). Overall, AT and SP stimulation were the most effective, and RM stimulation the least effective, for activating nucleus of the solitary tract (NST) G neurons. 3. Approximately half of the G neurons for which a receptive field could be defined (N = 36) responded to stimulation of a single taste receptor subpopulation, but the remaining neurons received convergent input from two or more taste bud groups. The receptive field configurations for convergent G neurons were orderly: convergence occurred preferentially between receptor subpopulations either within the anterior oral cavity (AO) or the posterior oral cavity (PO). An AO-PO distinction also was reflected in the topographic organization of gustatory responses. The mean location of neurons responding optimally to AO gustatory stimulation was more anterior in the NST, and also tended to be more lateral and ventral than the location of neurons that responded optimally to PO stimulation. 4. Forty-four rNST M neurons responded to innocuous mechanical stimulation of restricted areas of the tongue, palate, buccal mucosa, or periodontium. Stimulation of the hard palate and circumvallate papilla were most effective, whereas periodontal stimulation was least effective for activating these cells. 5. A majority (32 of 44) of rNST M neurons responded to stimulation of more than one of the oral sites tested.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.1995.73.6.2144

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In mammals, the caudal brainstem is the equivalent of the subesophageal ganglion, where direct sensory feedback from the tongue and the gut are integrated into basic motor patterns of ingestion.

    “In mammals, the caudal brainstem is the equivalent of the subesophageal ganglion, where direct sensory feedback from the tongue and the gut are integrated into basic motor patterns of ingestion ([166](#B166), [179](#B179)).”

    From Food reward, hyperphagia, and obesity (2011) · cites this paper as [179]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Travers, S. P., & Norgren, R.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
1995-06-01
Volume
73
Issue
6
Pages
2144-2162
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W1748514475
Cited by
179
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (7r01dc000415-03)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC00416, DC-00415)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Ion Channels and Receptors
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Keywords
nucleus tractus solitarius, gustatory neurons, receptive field organization, topographic organization, tongue, soft palate, circumvallate papillae, single-unit recording
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Male, Mouth, Neurons, Sensory Receptor Cells, Stimulation, Chemical, Sucrose, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Solitary Nucleus, Rats

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