AJP Legacy Journal of Neurophysiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol 184: 497-504, 1956;
0002-9513/56 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brooks, C. McC.
Right arrow Articles by Siebens, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brooks, C. McC.
Right arrow Articles by Siebens, A. A.

Inhibitory Action of Bulbar and Suprabulbar Reticular Formation on the Spinal Reflex Pathway

Chandler McC. Brooks 1, Kiyomi Koizumi 1, and Arthur A. Siebens 1

1 From the Department of Physiology, State University of New York, College of Medicine at New York City, Brooklyn, New York

Inhibitory action of bulbar and suprabulbar reticular formation on spinal flexor and extensor reflex pathways was studied. In some instances a reciprocal effect was obtained but usually a generalized inhibition resulted. Inhibition varied in magnitude but was always present during reticular formation stimulation. In a high percentage of cases inhibition persisted for a period of 2–3 minutes after cessation of stimulation. Stimulations which blocked the reflex occasionally also had an inhibitory effect on the antidromic potential evoked by stimulation of the motor fibers involved in the reflex but in many instances the antidromic potential was actually augmented. The inhibitory stimulation also did not prevent facilitation of the antidromic potential by orthodromic stimuli. Post-tetanic potentiation was not prevented nor terminated by stimulation of the inhibitory areas of the reticular formation. This data suggest that inhibition from the reticular formation does not block afferent terminals but acts postsynaptically in such a manner, however, as not to increase axon hillock block of antidromic invasion of the soma. Effects of certain anesthetics and drugs on these phenomena were studied.

Submitted on June 29, 1955







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 1956 by the American Physiological Society.