Strzalkowski Nicholas D J, Incognito Anthony V, Bent Leah R, Millar Philip J
Department of Human Health and Nutritional Science, University of Guelph Guelph, ON, Canada.
Department of Human Health and Nutritional Science, University of GuelphGuelph, ON, Canada; Toronto General Research Institute, Toronto General HospitalToronto, ON, Canada.
Front Neurosci. 2016 Dec 8;10:568. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00568. eCollection 2016.
Stimulation of high threshold mechanical nociceptors on the skin can modulate efferent sympathetic outflow. Whether low threshold mechanoreceptors from glabrous skin are similarly capable of modulating autonomic outflow is unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of cutaneous afferent feedback from the hand palm and foot sole on efferent muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA). Fifteen healthy young participants (9 male; 25 ± 3 years [range: 22-29]) underwent microneurographic recording of multi-unit MSNA from the right fibular nerve during 2 min of baseline and 2 min of mechanical vibration (150 Hz, 220 μm peak-to-peak) applied to the left hand or foot. Each participant completed three trials of both hand and foot stimulation, each separated by 5 min. MSNA burst frequency decreased similarly during the 2 min of both hand (20.8 ± 8.9 vs. 19.3 ± 8.6 bursts/minute [Δ -8%], = 0.035) and foot (21.0 ± 8.3 vs. 19.5 ± 8.3 bursts/minute [Δ -8%], = 0.048) vibration but did not alter normalized mean burst amplitude or area (All > 0.05). Larger reductions in burst frequency were observed during the first 10 s (onset) of both hand (20.8 ± 8.9 vs. 17.0 ± 10.4 [Δ -25%], < 0.001) and foot (21.0 ± 8.3 vs. 18.3 ± 9.4 [Δ -16%], = 0.035) vibration, in parallel with decreases in normalized mean burst amplitude (hand: 0.45 ± 0.06 vs. 0.36 ± 0.14% [Δ -19%], = 0.03; foot: 0.47 ± 0.07 vs. 0.34 ± 0.19% [Δ -27%], = 0.02) and normalized mean burst area (hand: 0.42 ± 0.05 vs. 0.32 ± 0.12% [Δ -25%], = 0.003; foot: 0.47 ± 0.05 vs. 0.34 ± 0.16% [Δ -28%], = 0.01). These results demonstrate that tactile feedback from the hands and feet can influence efferent sympathetic outflow to skeletal muscle.
刺激皮肤的高阈值机械性伤害感受器可调节传出性交感神经输出。来自无毛皮肤的低阈值机械感受器是否同样能够调节自主神经输出尚不清楚。因此,本研究的目的是检查来自手掌和足底的皮肤传入反馈对传出性肌肉交感神经活动(MSNA)的影响。15名健康的年轻参与者(9名男性;25±3岁[范围:22 - 29岁])在基线2分钟和对左手或左脚施加机械振动(150Hz,峰 - 峰值220μm)2分钟期间,接受了对右侧腓总神经多单位MSNA的微神经图记录。每位参与者完成了手部和足部刺激的三项试验,每次试验间隔5分钟。在手部(20.8±8.9对19.3±8.6次/分钟[Δ - 8%],P = 0.035)和足部(21.0±8.3对19.5±8.3次/分钟[Δ - 8%],P = 0.048)振动的2分钟内,MSNA爆发频率均有类似下降,但未改变标准化平均爆发幅度或面积(所有P>0.05)。在手部(20.8±8.9对17.0±10.4[Δ - 25%],P<0.001)和足部(21.0±8.3对18.3±9.4[Δ - 16%],P = 0.035)振动的最初10秒(开始)内,观察到爆发频率有更大幅度下降,同时标准化平均爆发幅度(手部:0.45±0.06对0.36±0.14%[Δ - 19%],P = 0.03;足部:0.47±0.07对0.34±0.19%[Δ - 27%],P = 0.02)和标准化平均爆发面积(手部:0.42±0.05对0.32±0.12%[Δ - 25%],P = 0.003;足部:0.47±0.05对0.34±0.16%[Δ - 28%],P = 0.01)也下降。这些结果表明,来自手和脚的触觉反馈可影响传出性交感神经向骨骼肌的输出。