The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organization of orosensory responses in the nucleus of the solitary tract of rat
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)
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reward Processing by the Opioid System in the Brain
Le Merrer, J., Becker, J. A. J., Befort, K., & Kieffer, B. L. (2009) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00005.2009 · Cited by 1,013
“The NTS contains the first central synapse of the gustatory system (374) and as such is an essential link in the chain of food reward.”
Neural pathways underlying vocal control
Jürgens, U. (2002) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(01)00068-9 · Cited by 871
Organization of projections from the medial nucleus of the amygdala: A PHAL study in the rat
Canteras, N. S., Simerly, R. B., & Swanson, L. W. (1995) · The Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.903600203 · Cited by 897
Risold, P., Thompson, R. H., & Swanson, L. W. (1997) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(97)00007-6 · Cited by 356
Small, D. M. (2012) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.04.011 · Cited by 351
Metadata
- Authors
- Travers, S. P., & Norgren, R.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- ORCID
- Travers, S. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- 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