Department of Physiology, Western Reserve University Medical School, Cleveland.
J Gen Physiol. 1932 Nov 20;16(2):165-75. doi: 10.1085/jgp.16.2.165.
Recent time-intensity data by Rushton (1932) on the sciatic nerve of the frog are shown to provide additional support to the writer's suggestion (1932, a) that integrals of the equation See PDF for Equation where V is the applied voltage, p is the local excitatory process and K and k are constants adequately represent the just effective direct current stimuli when the threshold value of p is made a linear function of the voltage of the form h +/- alpha V where h and alpha are constants. The measurement of excitability is discussed and it is shown that the criteria for "true" measurements are not likely to be found by the agreement of the data with canonical time-intensity functions as suggested by Lapicque (1931) but rather in the establishing of standard experimental conditions. These conditions may permit the use of chronaxie as a measure of excitability, but it seems more likely that the constant k of the above equation will have to be adopted. There is sufficient evidence to cast considerable doubt on the validity of any conclusions drawn from the existing measurements of chronaxie although those derived through a particular technique may be valid. The problem requires a thorough experimental investigation in terms of integrals of the above equation.
拉西克(1931)曾提出,当兴奋阈的时值呈 h ±αV 的形式与电压成线性关系时,其中 h 和α为常数,方程(其中 V 为外加电压,p 为局部兴奋过程,K 和 k 为常数)的积分能充分代表有效直流刺激。拉西克认为,只要兴奋时值的数据与标准的时间强度函数相吻合,就可以得出“真实”的测量结果。鲁森顿(1932)对蛙的坐骨神经进行了时间强度研究,其最新数据进一步支持了作者(1932,a)的建议,即上述方程的积分可充分代表有效直流刺激,而无需通过经典的时间强度函数来验证。本文讨论了兴奋性的测量方法,结果表明,标准实验条件的确立,比拉西克(1931)所建议的用兴奋时值的数据与标准时间强度函数相吻合更能作为“真实”测量的标准。这些条件可能允许用时值来衡量兴奋性,但方程中的常数 k 可能更适用。尽管通过特定技术得出的那些时值可能是有效的,但现有的时值测量结果存在较大的误差,因此,有充分的证据表明,从这些结果中得出的任何结论都是值得怀疑的。这个问题需要通过对上述方程的积分进行彻底的实验研究来解决。