↓ Skip to main content

Encoding of Tactile Stimuli by Mechanoreceptors and Interneurons of the Medicinal Leech

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Encoding of Tactile Stimuli by Mechanoreceptors and Interneurons of the Medicinal Leech
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00506
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jutta Kretzberg, Friederice Pirschel, Elham Fathiazar, Gerrit Hilgen

Abstract

For many animals processing of tactile information is a crucial task in behavioral contexts like exploration, foraging, and stimulus avoidance. The leech, having infrequent access to food, developed an energy efficient reaction to tactile stimuli, avoiding unnecessary muscle movements: The local bend behavior moves only a small part of the body wall away from an object touching the skin, while the rest of the animal remains stationary. Amazingly, the precision of this localized behavioral response is similar to the spatial discrimination threshold of the human fingertip, although the leech skin is innervated by an order of magnitude fewer mechanoreceptors and each midbody ganglion contains only 400 individually identified neurons in total. Prior studies suggested that this behavior is controlled by a three-layered feed-forward network, consisting of four mechanoreceptors (P cells), approximately 20 interneurons and 10 individually characterized motor neurons, all of which encode tactile stimulus location by overlapping, symmetrical tuning curves. Additionally, encoding of mechanical force was attributed to three types of mechanoreceptors reacting to distinct intensity ranges: T cells for touch, P cells for pressure, and N cells for strong, noxious skin stimulation. In this study, we provide evidences that tactile stimulus encoding in the leech is more complex than previously thought. Combined electrophysiological, anatomical, and voltage sensitive dye approaches indicate that P and T cells both play a major role in tactile information processing resulting in local bending. Our results indicate that tactile encoding neither relies on distinct force intensity ranges of different cell types, nor location encoding is restricted to spike count tuning. Instead, we propose that P and T cells form a mixed type population, which simultaneously employs temporal response features and spike counts for multiplexed encoding of touch location and force intensity. This hypothesis is supported by our finding that previously identified local bend interneurons receive input from both P and T cells. Some of these interneurons seem to integrate mechanoreceptor inputs, while others appear to use temporal response cues, presumably acting as coincidence detectors. Further voltage sensitive dye studies can test these hypotheses how a tiny nervous system performs highly precise stimulus processing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Engineering 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2020.
All research outputs
#13,482,115
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,696
of 13,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,515
of 313,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#70
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.