Erratum
for
Bartsch and Goadsby, Brain 126 (8) 1801-1813.
Brain, Vol. 126, No. 9, 2116-2117,
September 2003
© 2003 Guarantors of Brain
doi: 10.1093/brain/awg263
Erratum
Brain, Vol.
126, Part 8, August 2003 (pp. 1801-1813)
Increased responses in trigeminocervical nociceptive neurons to cervical input after stimulation of the dura mater
T. Bartsch and P. J. Goadsby
Brain Advance Access published June 23, 2003, 10.1093/brain/awg190
In this article, the legends for Figures 4 and 5 are associated with Figures 5 and 4, respectively. The figures and their correct legends are printed again below:
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4 Summary of the changes in the size of the cutaneous receptive fields in 12 animals after stimulation of the dura mater with MO. The mechanosensitive receptive fields before (black) and after (grey) dural stimulation represented responses to brush (WDR neurons) or to noxious pinch (NS neurons). With the exception of one neuron that was a NS neuron, all neurons were classfied as WDR neurons. *Expansion of the receptive field included not only the C2/C3 dermatomes but also the ipsilateral forelimb and the forepaw.
|
|
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5 (A) Example of a nociceptive convergent neuron in the C2 dorsal horn responding with an increase of activity to MO application onto the supratentorial dura mater. (B) MO application on to the dura (n = 18,filled circles) elicited a rapid increase in ongoing activity that gradually settled down to baseline activity. *P < 0.05 (ANOVA). Application of vehicle (n = 8, open circles) did not change ongoing activity as measured over 90 min. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. (C) Dural mechanical thresholds assessed by von Frey hair measurements before and after MO application showing a decrease of the thresholds except in two neurons.
|
|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
