QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by ILYINSKY, O. B. Articles by SHTIRBU, E. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by ILYINSKY, O. B. Articles by SHTIRBU, E. I.

Journal of Experimental Biology 61,781-798 (1974)
Published by Company of Biologists 1974

Efferent Regulation of the Abdominal Stretch Receptors of the Crayfish

O. B. ILYINSKY ¹, D. L. SPIVACHENKO ², and E. I. SHTIRBU ²

¹ Laboratory of General Physiology Reception, I.P. Pavlov Institute of Physiology, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad
² Laboratory of Neurophysiology, Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences of Moldavian SSR, Kishinev

1. Efferent regulation of the activities of the slowly adapting and fast adapting stretch receptors (the MRO₁ and MRO₂, respectively) of Astacus fluviatilis was studied.

2. It was shown that the receptors activity is under the efferent control of two central inhibitory neurones: the main inhibitory neurone (MIN) and the accessory neurone (AIN). Their activities were determined by the degree of discharge from the receptors.

3. There was close interaction between the MRO₁ and the MIN. The activity of the MIN was determined by the activity of the MRO₁ to a higher degree than vice versa; the activity of the MIN was influenced not only by the MRO₁ impulses, but by the cessation of those impulses as well (silent periods). The MRO₁ could inhibit or excite the MIN, whereas the MIN could inhibit the activity of the MRO₁.

4. Interaction between the MRO₁ and the MIN could occur during background activity of the MRO₁ or of the MIN. In both cases the activity of the initially non-active neurone appeared only after stimulation had been applied to the MRO₁.

5. Often each impulse of the MRO₁ resulted in a MIN discharge of from 1 to 361 impulses. Sometimes the responses appeared after burst-discharges, induced by mechanical stimulation, of the otherwise inactive MRO₁.

6. During interaction between the MRO₁ and the MIN, the neurone commencing activity had a higher discharge frequency, if only by 1-2 imp./ sec, than the one firing previously.

7. Under the influence of MIN impulses the response of the MRO₁ to stimulation changes from slowly adapting to fast-adapting.

8. The MIN has a slight inhibitory effect on the activity of the MRO₂ which is most clearly seen in the course of background activity of the MRO₂. The MRO₂, however, does not exert much influence on the activity of the MIN.

9. The AIN had much less effect than the MIN on receptors, and the receptors did not naturally evoke AIN impulses. There is, therefore, apparently a more complicated connexion between the receptors and the AIN than between the receptors and the MIN.