Functional organization within the medullary reticular formation of intact unanesthetized cat. II. Electromyographic
1Département de Physiologie, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract:
1. The present study has examined the detailed organization of the medullary reticular formation (MRF) as revealed by microstimulation (33-ms trains of 0.2-ms duration pulses at 330 Hz and 35 microA or less) in the intact, chronically implanted, unanesthetized cat. Stimulus-locked electromyographic (EMG) responses were recorded from flexors and extensors of each of the four limbs, as well as bilaterally from muscles of the neck and back, during stimulation of the same 592 loci that formed the basis of the preceding article. 2. The thresholds of the responses were different for each group of muscles, with, on the average, the neck muscles being activated at the lowest range of currents, 13.8-16.5 microA; forelimb muscles at 16.9-17.9 microA; back muscles at 25.4-25.7 microA; and hindlimb muscles at 21.1-25.7 microA. 3. Whereas stimulation within the MRF evoked movement of the head only to the stimulated side (preceding article), analysis of the EMG responses showed there was frequently bilateral activation of the neck muscles. Similarly, even though stimulation produced predominantly ipsilateral elbow flexion and contralateral elbow extension, most loci caused cocontraction of antagonistic muscles at these joints. Cocontraction was also frequently observed for the hindlimbs. Reciprocal activation of antagonistic muscles was less frequent but was observed in the ipsilateral forelimb as well as in both hindlimbs; it was never observed in the contralateral forelimb. 4. Although excitatory responses were observed from widespread regions for all of the muscles under study, those regions of the MRF that evoked the strongest responses in each muscle showed a large degree of segregation. Muscles of the ipsilateral forelimb were most strongly activated from the rostrodorsal MRF, whereas muscles of the contralateral forelimb were most strongly effected by stimulation caudoventrally. Muscles of the hindlimbs were more strongly activated from the rostral brain stem, although with some exceptions. Responses in axial muscles were evoked from widespread regions of the brain stem but were concentrated further caudally than were the limb muscles. 5. Excitatory responses were much more prevalent than inhibitory responses and were evoked from all regions of the MRF, including the most caudal and ventral areas. The shortest latency responses in each track were, on the average, as follows: 6.6-8.8 ms for the neck; 11.2-13.4 ms for the forelimbs; 13.8-14.2 ms for the back; and 15.9-17.2 ms for the hindlimbs. Inhibitory responses were also evoked from widely distributed regions, which were intermingled with those loci evoking excitatory responses.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Insights
This study mapped the medullary reticular formation (MRF) in cats using microstimulation, revealing distinct patterns for activating limb and axial muscles. Findings highlight segregated MRF regions controlling specific muscle groups and movement types.
Area of Science:
- Neuroscience
- Motor Control
- Neurophysiology
Background:
- The medullary reticular formation (MRF) plays a crucial role in motor control.
- Understanding the detailed organization of the MRF is essential for deciphering motor pathways.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the detailed organization of the medullary reticular formation (MRF) through microstimulation in cats.
- To map the electromyographic (EMG) responses of limb and axial muscles to MRF stimulation.
Main Methods:
- Microstimulation of 592 loci in the MRF of unanesthetized cats.
- Recording stimulus-locked EMG responses from limb, neck, and back muscles.
- Analysis of response thresholds, muscle activation patterns (reciprocal vs. cocontraction), and response latencies.
Main Results:
- Distinct current thresholds for activating different muscle groups (neck, forelimb, hindlimb, back).
- Frequent bilateral and cocontraction responses in neck and limb muscles, with some reciprocal activation observed.
- Segregated regions within the MRF showed strongest activation for specific muscle groups (e.g., rostrodorsal for ipsilateral forelimb, caudoventral for contralateral forelimb).
- Axial muscles were activated from more caudal brain stem regions compared to limb muscles.
Conclusions:
- The MRF exhibits a somatotopic organization for motor control, with segregated areas influencing specific muscle groups.
- Microstimulation reveals complex activation patterns, including cocontraction and bilateral responses, suggesting intricate neural circuitry.
- Response latencies varied significantly across muscle groups, reflecting different pathway conduction times.


