Table 1 |
|||
|
Latency to observable movement following short-pulse (100 ms), high intensity stimulation with infrared diode laser (6.08 W/mm2) |
|||
|
Standing on 2 or 3 paws |
Standing on 4 paws |
Total |
|
|
|
|||
|
Total number of trials |
8 |
8 |
16 |
|
Shortest latency to fLEM |
56 ms |
74 ms |
56 ms |
|
†Fastest conduction velocity |
3.0 m/s |
2.3 m/s |
3.0 m/s |
|
Mean latency to fLEM (± SEM) |
159.5 ± 36.7 ms |
250.0 ± 28.9 ms |
204.8 ± 25.4 |
|
†Mean conduction velocity |
1.1 m/s |
0.7 m/s |
0.8 m/s |
|
Shortest latency to withdrawal of stimulated limb |
74 ms |
128 ms |
74 ms |
|
Mean latency to withdrawal of stimulated limb (± SEM) |
213.0 ± 34.1 |
271.0 ± 27.7 |
242.0 ± 22.5 |
|
|
|||
|
†Conduction velocities are likely a gross underestimation of the actual conduction velocities. They do not account for central delay (~80 ms in the rat) [32], motoneuron conduction velocity (33-85 m/s) [33] or the time required for muscle contraction/relaxation (34-116 ms) [33]. Nonetheless, we were able to demonstrate that it is possible to detect nocifensive behaviors that are temporally consistent with being mediated by Aδ-fibers. The posture of the animal before stimulation appears to greatly influence our ability to detect movements with short or longer latencies. |
|||
|
Mitchell et al. Molecular Pain 2010 6:94 doi:10.1186/1744-8069-6-94 |
|||