Complex Functions in Neuroscience Essay Question Practice PDF

COMPLEX FUNCTIONS IN NEUROSCIENCE ESSAY QUESTION PRACTICE [Form and Function] Example Question 1) Describe how the process of cortical arealisation and morphogen gradients contribute to the functional mapping of the cerebral cortex. Cortical localization is determined by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic signalling. This was first described within the protomap and protocortex theories, which were initially debated and were later found to both provide different components of the process involved in the mapping of the cerebral cortex. The protomap theory suggests that the location/ relative spatial relationships/ columns, layering, and specialization/ function of neurons is already pre-determined within neuronal precursors via the intrinsic pattern within the ventricular zone. In other words, neurons are already committed to a specific cell fate based on gene patterning and the intrinsic signalling received from morphogens and transcriptional gradients before they migrate, which will then establish boundaries between different populations of neurons to form the map of the cortex and determine the function of neurons within each region. On the other hand, the proto cortex model suggested that neurons all already have the same potential to begin with and only receive their specific molecular instructions from external signals as they are moving into place, particularly from Thalamocortical axonal input which helps to refine the cortical map boundaries in an activity-dependent manner. It was found that parts of both theories hold true. After neural tube closure (neurulation) in development, the primary and secondary brain vesicles form. The rostral end of these then splits further into the three parts of the brain the prosencephalon, mesencephalon and rhombencephalon. The pros and rhombencephalon the further split into two. The prosencephalon splits into the telencephalon and diencephalon. The telencephalon is what will go on to develop all of the cortical areas. This splitting is driven by morphogen gradients as well (the same morphogens also seen in the spinal cord, with a few additions). These morphogens are released by primary organizers at the telencephalon such as the Anterior neural ridge which releases Fgf8, the Roof Plate and Cortical Hem which release Wnt and BMPs and the ventral telencephalon or Prechordal Plate which releases Shh. These morphogens establish gradients across the neural tube, reaching different thresholds at every point across. Different morphogen gradients will activate different sets of transcription factors. For example, the cortical hem activates transcription factors like Pax6, and Ngn2, whilst Shh (binds PTCH receptors that lift inhibition of SMO and activates Gli2 transcription factor) activates transcription factors like Nkx2.2 or Gbx2). These different gradients of transcription factors will then go to activate specific target genes that will drive the differentiation of that cell to its specific fate. Secondary organizer regions like the anti-hem will then allow for the maturation and refinement of boundaries later (e.g.: Hem is for dorsal telencephalic pallial identity to produce cortex and anti-hem via Dix1/2/3 for sub-pallial to produce sub-cortical like OB, hippocampus, BG etc.) aiding the further specific arealization within brain regions of different functions. Once they have been committed to a specific fate, and the progenitor pool has been expanded by NE symmetric division (with FGF then driving the transition to RGCs) they RGCs will divide asymmetrically, and help these specialized progenitor neurons migrate up to the cortical plate to form the cortical layers (those born earlier form deeper layers in an inside out manner). The RG unit hypothesis describes how RG aid migration of neurons in a columnar manner along their scaffolds that retains the relative spatial relationships of the primary sensory functional areas and their associated secondary areas to help form the different regions of the brain. Once they have migrated, and thalamic cortical axons have arrived as well, based on the environmental stimuli the embryo is exposed to, TCAs will help refine the size and boundaries of the sensory areas in an experience-dependent manner without shifting the relative positions, to form the final mature version of the localized cortex. Example Question 2) Discuss how the connectivity between the cells of the brain might be assessed; consider the applications and limitations of 3 experimental approaches. **Structural MRI** (up to level of cortical layers and columns, can't see level of synaptic connections, so best used to observe structural changes over time or in response to certain stimuli or for diseases like tumours or stroke, not so much for cell-cell connections). ERG (great temporal resolution but comes up with cartoon images of general electrical activity in the cortex, no idea of connections or structural origin, purely functional and not accurately localised, needs to be matched with structural and functional MRI). **Optogenetics** (allows for targeted activation of specific cells, depending on the colour of the light projected. Requires genetic modification to express the specific light-sensitive ion channels required for activation of a specific light stimulus. Allows for good functional observation from different stimuli in real time, how specific types of cells contribute to different behaviours in different brain regions but provides no structural information). **Fibre photometry** (measures real time global calcium activity levels using a calcium-sensitive fluorescent marker. The area of tissue is then implanted with an optical fibre and a photodetector is placed above it. Based on how much cells are activated, Ca2+ levels will increase more (from AP triggering) and will fluoresce more. This will be captured by the detector and will be analysed as the strength of the signal. Whilst this is in real time it only shows global activity/ collective not individual cell activity). **Cre recombinase** DREADD method and + Mcherry (requires genetic modification/ transgenic mice. Is a great way to detect only specific neuronal populations or activate only specific neuronal subtypes, or even a range of specific subtypes at once such as seen in brainbow mice with different colour coding for different types of neuron populations. This works by, via genetic modification, making cre recombinase expression driven by a specific promoter of choice, which can either be a general one like housekeeping promoter like b-actin which activates all neuronal cells, or a tissue-specific one, such as Tacr1 promoter for NK1 nociceptors in the spinal cord dorsal horn, this will ensure cre is only expressed in these neurons. Then can insert a floxed STOP sequence between the promoter and target gene, which can be a fluorescent label like GFP or mCherry or even a gene that will allow for conditional activation of those neurons (this step can also be achieved via other methods such as viral vector infection carrying these genes or transfection/ electroporation). Whenever the promoter for these target cells is active, cre will be expressed and excise the floxed STOP sequence at the loxP sites, allowing the promoter to express the target gene and so the cell will fluoresce to be visualised or be activated to produce a specific function in response to the added DREADD protein stimulus provided. This can further be controlled by other added factors, such as tamoxifen, which allows for induced activation. Cre is initially bound to ER, tamoxifen allows complex to translocate to nucleus and excise the floxed sequences. Can even use this method to add floxed STOP sequences with presynaptic and postsynaptic markers, fused to different fluorescent markers, so can observe the proximity of the puncta to find synaptic connections when cre excises the floxed sequences. 77This method allows for both visualisation of specific cell types and their connections within a target region, down to the synaptic proximity of connections, as well as their activation in response to specific stimuli to induce certain behaviours. It is also good as lasts over long-term but is more invasive as requires genetic modification). Hudgkin and Hyxley **patch clamp electrode**- substitute stimulus with a dye and allow for trans synaptic retrograde staining and visualisation via fluorescence imaging (makes connectivity maps- used in blue brain project to determine morphology and electrophysiological properties of neuron types within a cortical column to then use that column as a canonical unit that could be modularly replicated across the whole juvenile mouse sensory barrel cortex- essentially allowed the formation of a whole connectome, whilst shows connectivity does not really offer much application value to solve functional problems because is restricted to a specific area and is hard to extrapolate- what function these connections have, just about describing the structure). **MRI tractography** (non-invasive so can be performed many times over time to see differences in connectivity of the brain regions on a meso-scale/ lower spatial resolution. Takes advantage of the fact that water flows better along axon tracts rather than against them. Can colour code the direction of the tract to observe similarities in connections between regions). **CTB** (identifying visceral sensory afferents only- non-toxic subunit of the cholera virus, retrograde transganglionic tracer- can intramurally do a microinjection to wall of organs, use different colours of the tracer to see if innervations of different organs converge at the spinal cord/ dichotomizing axons- better understanding of cross-organ sensitization and central sensitization/ referred pain- for myelinated and unmyelinated visceral as well as autonomic postganglionic axons- can see how the interact as well, often autonomic affect activity of visceral as they travel alongside each other/ synapse same lamina in DH, can be used to distinguish visceral sensory afferents from somatic which are also present at the DH). **CTB as a Tracer for Visceral Sensory Afferents**: - CTB is indeed a **non-toxic subunit of the cholera toxin** used to label **visceral sensory afferents**. Injecting CTB into the wall of an organ allows it to trace neuronal pathways retrogradely, from the target organ back to the **dorsal horn (DH)** in the spinal cord. - Using **different colors of CTB tracers** can distinguish inputs from multiple organs to see whether afferent fibers from different visceral organs converge on the same regions in the spinal cord, especially for studying **dichotomizing axons**. **Application in Cross-Organ Sensitization**: - By mapping the innervation patterns of different organs and identifying areas of convergence, CTB tracing helps in understanding **cross-organ sensitization** --- where signals from one organ may influence or modulate the sensory processing from another, potentially contributing to complex pain or visceral reflex pathways. **Labeling Myelinated and Unmyelinated Fibers**: - CTB can label both **myelinated and unmyelinated visceral sensory fibers** and **autonomic postganglionic axons**. This labeling provides insights into how autonomic and visceral sensory fibers interact as they course alongside each other to innervate target organs, and how they may **influence activity in the same spinal cord laminae**. **Distinguishing Visceral from Somatic Afferents**: - CTB labeling is useful for identifying **visceral sensory afferents** specifically, distinguishing them from **somatic afferents** (e.g., those from skin or muscles) that also terminate in the DH. **fMRI** (fMRI is often combined to structural because it provides much better temporal resolution as often has less slices with less, larger voxels, which are read only once as already have sufficiently good signal:noise ratio as have more tissue in each voxel and contain capillaries for measuring BF. Whilst it is good for determining task-related regional localisation on the brain, it had poor spatial resolution as to get better temporal need to process the signals faster (faster pulse sequence). It can show the connection between different brain areas in terms of function. For example it was used to determine the time taken for language/ reading processing from a simple visual stimulus to actual language comprehension by observing the time it took for the signal recorded to converge from the V4 cortical area on both hemispheres to the ventral word form area in the temporal lobe of the left hemisphere. Similarly it was also used to prove that the placebo effect is actually based on neurobiological mechanisms. When placebo was tested on subjects, fMRIs showed that not only was the dlPFC being activated together with the PAG in the midbrain, suggesting that they were talking to each other via the descending pain modulation pathway, but that also the DH was being activated, confirming this prediction. Whilst is can show general cross talk between brain regions and overall connectivity for behavioural responses this is all only valid if we consider that it is an accurate representation of neural signalling, given it is an indirect measure based on the decay of deoxy-Hb in the blood, that the person tested is actually performing the task being analysed, that enough subject data is pooled with both a test and a control set, and that statistical subtraction analyses are done properly. To get more value from these results it should be combined with other techniques such as structural MRI for better localisation of functions and cell connections and ERP (as was done in the word form experiment) for even better temporal in real time without a delay in the signal). **fMRI adaption paradigm** (Wanted to test whether the insula integrates both external and internal stimuli (exteroceptive and interoceptive) together or separately/ not integrated to produce interoceptive experiences. Repeatedly stimulated the subject with interoceptive stimuli (isoproterenol b1 agonist for control of HR for cardiac awareness) and then stimulated them with exteroceptive sweet taste (not visceral, just normal somatic sensation) to see if it would be affected. If the sweet sensation was attenuated by the repeated sensitizing interoceptive stimulation, means they are integrated together in the insula proving the sensory convergence model, if not affected then they are processed separately by different types of neurons, proving the labelled line model. They found that the area in the **mid-insula** responsible for processing taste (specifically sweet taste) showed much **less activity** following the interoceptive cardiac awareness task. This indicates that the same neurons are likely involved in processing both types of information. This overlap in neural activation suggests that taste and cardiac awareness are **integrated**, rather than processed in parallel by separate neurons. This finding supports the **sensory convergence model**, where shared neurons in the insula integrate exteroceptive and interoceptive information, contributing to more complex global emotional experiences. The control experiment using a visual stimulus (which doesn\'t heavily involve insular processing) showed no such adaptation, confirming that the overlap is specific to the insular region responsible for taste and interoception. [Consciousness] Example Question 1) Discuss the role of thalamocortical circuits in the regulation of consciousness. How do these circuits contribute to both sleep and wakefulness? Thalamocortical circuits are involved in both non-REM sleep as well as in wakefulness. In a wakeful state the arousal brain regions including the Locus Coeruleus (LC) noradrenergic relay (from mid pons), the Pedunculopontine and Latero-dorsal Tegmental Nuclei (PPT/ LDT nuclei) cholinergic relays and the raphe nucleus serotonergic relay systems (from upper pons) to the thalamus. This is called the ascending system. External stimuli such as to the melanopsin retinal ganglion cells which signal the presence of light to the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) to inhibit the release of melatonin, help entrain the feedback loop of clock genes to reset the 24-h cycle and also promote stimulus to arousal centres. The arousal centres then relay signals to the thalamus constantly, the thalamus then further relays this to layer 4 of the cortex in a tonic mode. This mode is characterised by a lot of sensory relays from the periphery and external stimuli to the thalamus which are then integrated at the cortex to induce the conscious state of experience and wakefulness. This mode of signalling is also seen in REM sleep. On the other hand, when the homeostatic pressure and circadian rhythm pressure for sleep increases, activity of arousal centres and orexin neurons is inhibited by the Preoptic area (PO/AH) in the lateral anterior hypothalamus and promotes sleep. Non-REM sleep is characterised by burst activity of the thalamus caused by intrinsic Ca2+ spikes followed by short periods of inactivity. This leads to the formation of sleep spindles. In the formation of sleep spindles, the thalamocortical feedback loop is important. Here all input is from intrinsic thalamic activity not from sensory or external stimuli which are dialled down during sleep. The thalamus sends a burst of AP to the cortex layer 4, the cortex is excited and relays the signal back down via layer 6 neurons to the thalamus, but this excitatory signal also activates reticular inhibitory neurons simultaneously, which inhibit activation of the thalamus preventing its Ca2+ spike, thus causing the period of inactivity seen in after the sleep spindle before the next one. So as can be seen, corticothalamic circuits are important in both maintaining wakefulness as well as sleep. Example Question 2) Evaluate the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) as a model of consciousness. How does this theory propose that consciousness emerges, and what are its limitations? Only systems that can maximise the informational content of what is provided (that can integrate the most amount of information) can produce consciousness. The level of integration is quantified by phi. So could theoretically determine how much consciousness each brain region has, or the whole brain based on how much it can integrate. The higher the phi the higher the consciousness. The limitation is that it does not explain how the integration of information leads to consciousness, it does not remove the need for magical/ strong emergence (more complex things like consciousness arising spontaneously from simpler things without explanation), it simply shifts the hard problem from classical physics to a theory of integration. Example Question 3) How does the concept of \'emergence\' relate to the problem of consciousness? Contrast the ideas of strong emergence and panpsychism in explaining consciousness. -Emergence is that it can spontaneously arise from simpler processes such as the simple signalling between neurons within the brain. -Panpsychism states that it has been present all along as a fundamental unit of the universe, whereby each neuron already had a bit and as a whole when they come together in a system of connectivity, they produce overall consciousness. Or that it only arises under certain constructs when a certain threshold is reached. But this doesn't explain why some parts of the brain have conscious experiences and others don't then. -Computation could fit under both definitions. Example Question 4) Examine the role of attention in the conscious experience. How do the locus coeruleus and attention-modulating systems contribute to both attention and arousal? The Locus Coeruleus (LC) noradrenergic system was often referred to as the sympathetic nervous system of the brain, in the way it had diffuse branching to many regions of the brain (such as the brainstem, cerebellum, hippocampus, thalamus etc) via en passant synapses to induce global switches in arousal states. There are three main theories that have been proposed for its function and role in modulating attention: 1. The Adaptive gain theory stating that the LC has three modes of activity predominantly needed to allocate processing power or resources to the part of the brain that will attend to a specific stimulus. The first mode is Phasic activity, which is its baseline activity needed for general state of alertness to the surroundings. The second is Strong, whereby greater signalling is activated when requiring more focused task-related activity (since attention is a unitary property, need to remove distracting stimuli and try to focus on what voluntarily want to attend to, to be successful at the task at hand). The third is Tonic activity, which is more related to predicting what could happen, to expectation, and if this mode is sustained for longer periods, it promotes exploratory behaviour (attending to things that haven't paid much attention to before/ novel stimuli). 2. The network reset theory which suggests that the LC is needed mainly for strategizing/ shifting to a different approach and re-focusing attention onto something else that may work better. 3. The context-dependent modular coding theory which thinks of the LC as a composition of different parts rather than a single nuclear unit. It suggests that different parts of the LC are activated at different times to signal to distinct brain regions and promote specific alertness in base of the context presented. There is a greater role played in spatial attention by the right hemisphere than the left hemisphere, as can be seen in hemineglect patients (where lesion to the left is not as severe as right brain can still compensate for the left as well, but this does not work the other way around). Similarly, the posterior parietal-occipital lobe is also involved in the attention modulating system in terms of spatial awareness, as seen in Balint's syndrome where a lesion in this region causes people to only be able to attend to one object at a time. Example Question 5) Explain the relationship between computational models of the brain and theories of consciousness. How do bottom-up and top-down approaches to modelling contribute to our understanding of consciousness? There are various proposed theories of consciousness, of which 22 are more based on neurobiology. The hard problem that has persisted throughout, which none of these theories have been able to address so far, is the question of how consciousness can arise from physical processes. It was argued that if the brain is simply an operation and a combination of the processing of neural signalling, and if everything else was stripped away, whereby we accept that the only thing making consciousness special is our intuition of it, then there is no need for consciousness. This was compared to a computational system. Whereby if this is true, then neurons can be considered the same as the modular units of a computational system and their network activity provides meaning to the processing, just like all the simple inputs provided to a computational system, which determine the algorithm produced, which then can be applied more broadly to make meaning out of the symbols and syntax of the system to produce an output. If consciousness, simply arose from the processing of neuronal signalling then it could be mechanised. So far consciousness has been described through 'magical/ strong emergence' whereby more complex things like consciousness can arise from simpler properties without explanation. If this theory is accepted though, then it would prevent us from trying to understand consciousness further and what produces it, and there would simply be no need for consciousness. If we don't want to accept this theory then another was proposed, that if it doesn't just magically emerge, then maybe it was present all along as a fundamental unit of the universe, or that it is always present, but it is only manifested under certain constructions that meet the critical threshold, such as our brain. This is known as Panpsychism. If this was true, then computational systems, that can often be extremely complex, would fall under this construct threshold, meaning that computation would naturally comprise an element of consciousness. Another theory that was suggested initially was that of the Integrated Information theory (IIT), whereby consciousness only arises in systems that make the most out of the information they are given, in other words, in systems that can integrate the most information present within that system. The level of integration is quantified by phi, things with a higher phi would have higher consciousness. Again, many computational systems are very efficient in using the inputs they are provided, and via recursion can produce extremely complex integrated outputs, and many conclusions from a single statement. Wouldn't this also then support the idea that computation is parallel to consciousness? This theory was however disregarded as it did not explain why integration of information simply led to consciousness. Thereafter, Penrose made a deduction based on quantum mechanics. He explained how quantum particles exist in superposition within their wave function, only when measured and observed by us do the many possibilities of their position collapse into one fixed position. He related this to our brain processing, how when we are sensing our environment or making decisions, the many possibilities and representations of inputs we are receiving, collapse into one definite experience or decision. Hammeroff then built off of this with his knowledge of anaesthetics working on microtubules to make people unconscious. He observed that the amino acid Tryptophan could maintain quantum state under room temperature, as shown by its super radiance when changing quantum state (as it contains an aromatic ring). He thus concluded that microtubules, being able to maintain quantum under room temperature were responsible for producing consciousness (and thus would be present in every cell, giving them their first-person perspective). Yet this simply shifted the hard problem from classical physics (neuronal signalling and conduction) to quantum physics, still requiring magical emergence. Moreover, if quantum was the answer to consciousness this would mean that all quantum computers and quantum computation would be conscious. The Bottom-up approach of the Blue Brain project helped to determine the components within a modular columnar unit of the brain that could be replicated across the whole brain to derive the bigger picture and obtain a connectome of the whole brain that could start operating like a brain with artificial cognition. Yet the project was criticised because it provided to applicational value to find actual solutions. Could still not understand how this model that worked exactly like our brain was producing novel properties on its own and relate it back to our actual brains. The Top-down approach of Artificial Neural Networks or Deep Artificial Neural Nets (DANNs) also helped show that the feedback of randomised weighting of the strength of connections was comparable to the synapses in our brain and the nodes to our neurons. Whereby the algorithm would try to modify the weighting each time to come closer to the desired output, forming deeper layers of the neural net. In a way this is similar to how our own brains work, yet it still doesn't explain how the complexity formed by these many layers then results in a self-perspective. It it just the perception of our learning and physiological homeostatic state that tells us it is us thinking, feeling and doing these things? Example Question 6) Critically analyse Roger Penrose's quantum theory of consciousness. How does his theory address the limitations of classical computation in explaining conscious thought? -He explains that formal systems such as that of mathematics have limitations that human mind doesn't. Certain affirmations derived by the system are not provable or observable by the system, we need to do this by stepping outside of the construct of the formal system. This is referred to as Gödel's incompleteness theorem. -He related this to quantum particles in math. They exist in superposition, and only when measured/ observed by us do their wave forms collapse so that they take on a fixed position. The formal system could not do this itself, required us to do it. -This was then furthered by Hammeroff, extending it to microtubules that are the targets of anaesthetics, who found that tryptophan within them could maintain quantum state at room temperature. He thus suggested that consciousness in all cells was a product of quantum found within their microtubules. -This did not however address the limitations of classical computation in explaining conscious thought because it simply moved the hard problem from classical to quantum physics still requiring magical emergence. Further it also suggests that any computational system that can hold quantum states (such as quantum computers) will thus be conscious. Example Question 7) Describe the process of sensory information modification during sleep. How do brainstem and hypothalamic circuits influence thalamocortical connectivity during sleep stages, especially REM? Example Question 8) Discuss the \"simulation grounding problem\" in the context of consciousness. How does this problem challenge computational theories of consciousness? -Computational systems are based on basic inputs represented by a system of symbols. The machine will start to make many different representations of the incoming inputs and form patterns, or an algorithm so that similar inputs are more easily recognised in future. The cumulation of this algorithm will drive an output in the form of the syntax of the system (symbols/ letters/ numbers). The computer itself does not know what these mean itself, just like inputs received by neurons to induce signalling (the symbols) to drive an output will not be understood by the neurons themselves. We have to assign the foundation and meaning to our brain processing via consciousness, just like programmers assign the meaning of the symbols to the computational system. -It challenges computational theories by stating that no matter how advanced a computational system, it itself won't be able to develop consciousness because it cannot provide a foundational meaning to what it is producing. \-\-\-\-\-\-\-- The simulation grounding problem refers to the difficulty in computational theories of consciousness where symbols and patterns manipulated by a computer lack intrinsic meaning or \"grounding.\" Computational systems operate by processing symbols according to algorithms, recognizing and categorizing patterns, and producing outputs based on pre-defined rules. However, they do so without understanding the content of their outputs---each computation is syntactic rather than semantic. This concept echoes philosopher John Searle\'s *Chinese Room Argument*, which suggests that even if a machine could simulate human language responses, it wouldn\'t \"understand\" the language. Instead, it would only be manipulating symbols based on rules without any comprehension. Similarly, while a computer might simulate neural processing, it does not actually experience or understand the information it processes. Consciousness, by contrast, includes subjective experiences or *qualia*, which are tied to the ability to understand and ascribe meaning to one\'s inputs. The simulation grounding problem highlights that, because computational systems are bound to syntax without semantics, they cannot produce true consciousness. This challenges computational theories by suggesting that no amount of data processing or algorithmic patterning will bridge the gap between simulated processing and conscious awareness. [Cognition] \>Aristotle- syllogism (deductive logic) \>Hilbert's Program- wanted to create a formal axiomatic system for maths that could serve as the foundation for all mathematical truths \>Frege- created the first axiomatic system, to do this believed that had to think of numbers as sets so used the set theory approach and wanted to represent logical laws with the least number of principles (symbolic logic), so converted language into a system of symbols and called it 'concept script'. He believed the foundational system of all mathematics should be based on the set theory because this would ensure all mathematical statements were derived from logical principles and a common language. His formal system was based on predicate calculus (generalisation of propositional calculus) where unlike syllogistic logic, subjects were individual entities (a man rather than all men), he included connections between statements, allowing for a greater number of cases rather than simply being restricted to True or False and absolutes like Aristotle's syllogistic logic, a system that could be applied to more forms of reasoning other than language, having converted it into symbols. He included implication (if p implies q and q implies r then p implies r), conditional statements (if A then B) and also qualifiers like "there exist men that are mortal" rather than "all men are mortal". However, there was a big issue in his system which was pointed out to him by Bertrand Russel- paradox ("Russel's Paradox), because of his set theory approach he had made a system flawed with contractions (A could be in group B, but it could also be in group C). \*'S'- the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. If 's' is not in 's' then it should be, but if "s" is in "s" then it shouldn't be. Russel demonstrated that the contradiction in Frege's system was caused by self-reference (this sentence is false, because if it is true then it is false and it can't be both at the same time) which leads to contradictions. This means that formal systems should avoid it, but if it is avoided how do you get recursion in order for axiomatic systems to operate (recursion is needed to understand conclusions from a limited set of principles and to trace conclusions back to their starting axioms/ principles to ensure they were reached via valid steps of reasoning/ rules of inference)? Even sentences that simply refer to each other can lead to contradictions (the sentence below is true, the sentence above is false). Abandoned his work as a logical system with contradictions is useless. \>Russel and Whitehead- set out to solve this and ultimately formalise maths using Giusepi Peano's axiomatic system. They came up with the Principia Mathematica, which did not include self-reference and supposedly had no contradictions. \*t-q formal system- emulated the rules of multiplication to create all composite numbers, could it be used to find what is missing (the prime numbers)- no because it is not part of the system, it just operates on the simple inputs/ axioms that it has been given to formulate an algorithm and deduce true outputs, it does not know it is doing multiplication, that is what we inferred it could do, it is also not programmed to find 'what's missing' because it doesn't know to look for it. So formal systems have limitations. Sometimes have to step out of the formal system to derive conclusions (abductive reasoning). With the MIU typographic system, needed to use the axiom MI to try and make MU, again, whilst the program outputs were all correct and could be traced back to the axiom, it would just keep going and going, as it could determine it is not solvable- we have to observe this by stepping out of the system. Was also converted to arithmetic system, where all theorems derived from the topographic system could be generated equally by applying the corresponding arithmetic rules. Just like cannot derive MU from MI as I will never be divisible by 3, also cannot derive 30 from a starting axiom of 31. \*Then came Meta logic with Gödel, Turing and Church. \>Gödel converted the Principia Mathematica into a system of arithmetic and called it Gödel numbering. And as Whitehead and Russel were coming to the end of their project, he proved using his arithmetic system that was actually not possible to create an axiomatic formal system where everything that could ever be proven could be done so using the fundamental principles of that system. He determined that there were certain truths that could be derived from a formal system, that could be ascertained to be true but that could not be proven by the system itself, will always be incomplete (not inconsistent). He proved this by making a Gödel number that was self-referential and true but that could not be proven by the system. "The integer g is not the number of a theorem", represented by statement G. \>Turing wanted to then create a representation of anything that could be computable in the simplest terms. He thus made the Turing machine, both the simplest and the most complex thing computation can do. It is the highest hierarchy of program strength. It is the minimum requirement for computation, but it is also the maximum, in the sense that anything that is computable/ any algorithmic process can be completed by a Turing Machine. A Universal TM is any machine that can simulate an arbitrary TM from an arbitrary input. Same as the incompleteness theorem by Godel, the Turing- Church thesis shows that certain propositions written by the computational system in the correct syntax and language are true but cannot be produced by the computational program itself so are undecidable (cannot tell us if true or false) so will keep running (the halting problem). Meta-logic (the limits of formal systems) applies to any formal system of sufficient power, such as to describe mathematics/ arithmetic. \*How can you know if a computational system will ever come to a finish given the output of one computation is the input of the next (recursive)??- The halting problem. You can't , cannot form another system to evaluate other systems and their feasibility of producing an output. Truth is bigger than proof- need to observe from the outside- abductive reasoning \*Rules of inference= logical rules that describe the valid steps in reasoning allowing us to derive conclusions from premises. \*Propositional logic/ calculus- implication and conditional statements. \*Predicate logic/ calculus- more extensive than propositional. Has more cases. Here all subjects are individual entities not a group. Add there exist rather than all- qualifiers. \*Meta Logic- the deductive logic used to assess the completeness and consistency of logical systems. Looks at the limitations of formal systems. Applies to systems that are of sufficient power to include arithmetic. AHFRWGTC ---\> (Aristotle, Hilbert, Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Gödel, Turing, Church) All Haters Feel Rage When Gaia Takes Charge \*If we were able to mechanise the foundations of mathematics, this would provide a mechanistic path to complete knowledge. \*Algorithm=procedure which takes and input and processes it via a series of simple/ unambiguous/ precise steps to form an output. Example Question 1) Many animals, including humans, exhibit a sense of numerosity, an inherent ability to estimate and compare small numbers of objects. i. What are characteristics of this ability as revealed by experimentation? Animals are born with an innate sense of numerosity (a-priori knowledge), mainly the general idea of quantities and numbers. This was shown via various experiments on different animals. One study on chimps showed that they had a general sense of proportions and fractions, where they could identify that half an apple was more similar to half a cup of milk rather than a full one. Further they were also able to pick a tray of food with 4+3 rather than 5+1 treats, proving that they also have a general idea of quantity, recognising that 4+3 was more. It was also found that they could distinguish differences in numbers more easily when the difference was greater, known as the 'distance effect' and that with the same difference, they found it harder to process as numbers got larger- the 'magnitude effect'. Another study also supported this idea based on rats. The rats had to press lever A for a certain number of times before they could receive a treat after pressing lever B. They found that up to 4 presses they were quite accurate, but as numbers got larger around 16 got less accurate even if the mean was always around the number anyways, showing that they still had a general idea of the magnitude and quantity. Extending this experiment, they got rats to press the left lever if they heard two sounds or saw two light flashes to receive a treat, and the right if there were 4x the sound or the flash. When they played two sounds and two flashes at the same time, rather than pressing the left lever they actually performed some type of addition and pressed the right corresponding to 4 signals. This again shows they have a general sense of innate numerosity. Human patients even with a left lesion, which is the dominant hemisphere for language and logic and maths, still presented a basic sense of number in their right hemisphere, being able to recognise low numbers and perform very simple additions. ii. What is known of the organisation of the neural circuits underlying it in the human brain? The organisation of neural circuits for numeracy is topographically mapped in the superior parietal cortex and is mapped on a logarithmic scale. This means that lower numbers occupy more space and are more spread out in the cortical territory allowing for more precise discrimination than larger numbers. As numbers get very large, they are even represented as ranges within the cortex (e.g.: 1,000-10,000 may be expressed together with more specific discrimination for individual numbers within their very small territorial area). This is because we give lower numbers more significance. For example, the difference between 1 and 2 seems larger than that between 100 and 101 even if the absolute unit is 1 in both. This was found via fMRI experiments using panels with different numbers of circles on them, to see which areas of the brain would get activated for which numbers and saw that was more responsive for lower numbers (control ensured that circles were spread out differently and of different sizes to remove any background activation not related to the number itself such as for shape/ edges etc). iii. How does the human ability for advanced mathematics relate to the sense of numerosity? The one thing that humans have that is special compared to other animals is ordinal sense and the idea that numbers are presented as an infinite sequence. This gives us the ability to form abstract models to represent the different patterns found in numerosity. We have created the abstract idea of quantity and defined it through the creation of another abstract language using symbols. The fundamental principles of numerosity can be represented in the simplest terms through symbolic logic. This formal system can then be applied to deduce patterns and rules that are specific/ precise and reproducible to solve more complex mathematical problems. This formal system provides the base for advanced mathematics, and the meaning we grounding we give to the symbols/lexicon and the syntax of the model is what allows us to derive the semantics of the outputs. Example Question 2) Compare Aristotle's syllogistic logic with Frege's development of symbolic logic. How did Frege\'s work on quantifiers and variables revolutionize formal systems, and what limitations did Aristotle's approach have? Example Question 3) Compare and contrast the contributions of Russell, Gödel, and Turing in shaping our current understanding of logic, computation, and the limits of formal systems. How do their ideas interconnect, and what are their lasting impacts on computer science and artificial intelligence? Frege was the first to come up with a symbolic axiomatic system for mathematics. His aim was to establish the foundations of all mathematical laws with the smallest number of principles, and thus decided to represent it in the form of symbols, calling it concept script. He defined predicate calculus/ logic, which is an extension of propositional logic, which included more causes than syllogistic logic (from Aristotle), such as implications and conditional statements. In this system all subjects were individual entities, no longer groups, and he introduced qualifiers for example, 'there exists men' rather than 'all men'. He based his formal system on the set theory. By the time he started working on his model most complex mathematical concepts had already been reduced to groups in terms of natural numbers. He thought that by doing this he would build a foundation for mathematics where any output derived from it would be based on logical principles. Russel's fundamental role was in finding an inconsistency in Frege's model. He found that Frege's model included self-reference which leads to paradox. This is known as Russel's Paradox. He proved this as follows: 's'= the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves. If 's' is in 's' it means that it cannot be in 's' because that would break the rule that it is not its own member. If 's' is not in 's' then it should be in 's' because it is not in itself. He therefore established a limitation of formal systems- that they should avoid self-reference (like 'this statement is false' because if it is true then it is false and it cannot be both at once), even if two sentences are referring to each other. Yet, within formal systems self-reference is often crucial for recursion of axiomatic rules to produce greater complexity. Recursion in computational systems is essential- you need to be able to apply the basic inputs over and over to form algorithms. Gödel then similarly played an important role in finding the limitation in the Principia Mathematica model that Russell and Whitehead produced. His fundamental discovery, known as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, is that any formal system with enough power to describe arithmetic, if consistent, will be necessarily incomplete. He proved this by first converting all of the Principia Mathematica typographic system into arithmetic and called it Gödel numbering. He then formed a Gödel number that was self-referential and true, yet that could not be proven by the system itself. "the integer g is not a number in a theorem", described by the statement G. This basically served to prove that there are propositions that can be derived using the correct syntax and language of a system that cannot be established as true or false, so the system remains incomplete. This idea was very similarly seen by Turing in his creation of the Turing Machine, through 'the halting problem'. This phenomenon describes how you can never know whether a computational program is just taking a really long time to derive an output or whether it will never end. Whilst the algorithm and outputs it is producing are in the correct syntax, the program is unable to see that a certain problem is not solvable, will not be able to tell us if it is true/false, it is undecidable. This requires us to step outside the formal system and make this observation, termed abductive reasoning by Pierce. This is seen in the MIU topographic system for example, which was also converted to arithmetic. From the axiom MI you cannot get MU because I will never be divisible by 3, but the system is simply following the correct rules so it can't see this, similarly from the axiom 31 you cannot get 30 as an output. Whilst the Turing machine defines the simplest rules/ minimum requirement of computation and at the same time also the most complex thing computation can achieve (any algorithm can be processed by a Turing machine), certain things remain not computable, this is where human reasoning may provide a qualitative advantage. "Truth is bigger than Proof". Example Question 4) Explain Gödel's theorem and how it demonstrated that no formal system capable of describing mathematics can be both complete and consistent. Created Gödel number (converting PM into arithmetic) that was self-referential and true but that could not be produced/ proven by the system itself. "The integer g is not part of a theorem" described as statement G. This statement is true because it correctly identifies that it cannot be proven as it is not part of a formal system, yet given that it is not a formal system it cannot prove its own validity. Showed that Principles derived from a system in the correct syntax/ language of the system can be true, and so remain consistent in terms of the rules of inference of the axiomatic system, but cannot be derived by the system itself, and thus the formal system remains incomplete. This was coined 'Gödel's incompleteness theorem". Whereby any logical/ formal system with sufficient power to describe arithmetic, if free of contradictions, would be necessarily incomplete. Whereby completeness is where any true statement derived from a system can be proven by its rules and a consistent system is one which avoids any contradictions. No system is able to observe this fault/ the fact that another system may be incomplete, it requires us to step out of the formal system and observe this- abductive reasoning (termed this by Pierce). This is where human reasoning may provide qualitative value above what formal logic and computation can achieve. "Truth is bigger than proof". Gödel's theorem made a great contribution to Meta-logic (together with the Turing-Church thesis), ultimately defining the limitations of formal systems -there is no means of producing a logical system that fully provides a foundation for all existent truths. [Pain] Example Question 1) James suffered severe injuries 10 years ago following an automobile accident in which his car rolled several times crushing his arm. The injuries were so extensive that surgeons decided to amputate James' arm at his shoulder joint. It has now been 5 years since the accident, and James continues to experience recurrent and debilitating pain originating from his amputated limb. In fact, he feels the pain in his missing forearm, hands and fingers, even though there is no possibility of sensory input arising from these areas (his arm is amputated). His doctor explains to James that whilst pain is often related to the presentation of noxious stimuli to external or internal tissues, the level of pain that is experienced is also often not linearly related to such stimuli. Apply your knowledge of nociceptive processing networks to provide **at least two (2) lines** of scientific evidence supporting this assertion by the doctor and to propose a plausible mechanism for why James is experiencing pain from his amputated limb? You must support your answer with appropriate descriptions of circuit wiring, neurotransmitters involved and other mechanisms, the outcomes of research papers presented to you, or other specific details as needed. -Why nociception does not equal to pain (2 reasons: can have nociception without pain such as in the case of spinal cord injury where get... but can also have pain without nociception such as in the case of referred pain like following a stroke get in left shoulder and arm/ ectopic pain/ cross-organ sensitization where for example often visceral disorders don't come alone- have comorbidities for example interstitial cystitis can come together with irritable bowel syndrome, or also in the case of non-cardiac chest pain- these were initially regarded as functional visceral pain but have now been characterised under nociplastic pain which is....) -What is causing the phantom limb pain (cortical reorganization of territory- LTD of fibres that innervated that receptive field/ dermatome- to thalamic VPL topographic mapping also changes, to S1 homunculus). Example Question 2) i. What is the difference between pain and nociception? Pain is an unpleasant state caused by sensory or emotional processes in response to the potential of damage or actual damage. On the other hand, nociception is the biological process and sensory processing encoding the pain. Pain cannot simply be felt by nociception and the processing of nociceptive signalling, it has to be encoded by higher brain areas and integrated to be consciously received. Only conscious entities can experience pain. Pain is highly subjective and thus the integration of the nociception will differ greatly between people, based on cultural differences (what has been taught to them to be acceptable as pain), psychological differences, emotion, biological and social experiences. There are different types of pain yet only one form of nociception (processing if the stimuli). There can be nociception without pain, for example in spinal cord injury, where the afferent fibres are interrupted from reaching the brain, the pain signal won't be integrated and thus won't be felt even though it is present. There can also be pain without nociception, such as in the case of phantom pain, where the limb is no longer there to receive nociceptive stimuli, yet central signals corresponding to it are still being integrated as pain of the limb. There are different ways in which pain can be perceived depending on whether it is somatic or visceral pain and what types of nociceptors are responding to it. Visceral pain is more diffuse due to the higher level of branching and often poorly localised. Contrastingly, somatic pain is better discriminated and can be either pin-prick pain or longer throbbing type of pain. ii. Define the different types of pain and the role of peripheral sensitization in hypersensitivity syndromes There are 4 main types of pain split within two main domains, Adaptive/ protective and Maladaptive/ pathological: -Nociceptive (adaptive): in response to high-intensity noxious stimuli (need a trigger). As stimulus increases the firing will increase proportionally/ linearly. -Inflammatory (adaptive): in response to inflammatory mediators released by the injury. These mediators such as substance P, prostaglandins, bradykinin, histamine etc., can sensitise nociceptors and lower their threshold making them hypersensitive. This leads to primary and secondary hyperalgesia. Can be caused both by the injury tissue site itself or via antidromic activity/ axon reflex via the nociceptor axon collaterals themselves (positive feedback, worsening the peripheral sensitization). This means that will have higher sensitivity from usually mild noxious stimuli. Starts going into the clinical realm. -Neuropathic (maladaptive): pain resulting from damage or disease of the nervous system, such as in the case of a stroke, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, AIDS, Herpes. It is caused by a change in the synapses within the pain pathway. This is a spontaneous type of pain and is persistent. Will get pain sensation even from usually non-noxious stimuli (allodynia) and very mild/ low threshold noxious sensations. -Nociplastic (maladaptive): no specific known trigger for the pain/ not arising from a known disease or damage. Can be combined with nociceptive pain, where an initial site of injury triggers a pain response, yet this spreads to unaffected areas causing ectopic pain without cause (ectopic nociceptor discharge). For example, many visceral chronic pain conditions that were previously defined based on functional changes (functional visceral pain) are now characterised under nociplastic pain (non-cardiac chest pain, interstitial cystitis, irritable bowel syndrome etc). As stated, the non-specific trigger can often be due to peripheral and central sensitization linked to nociceptive pain in another convergent or nearby pathway, sensitizing the afferents to the area in pain (ectopic pain), and leads to hypersensitivity. These conditions often come with many comorbidities, won't occur in isolation (cross-organ sensitization, for example, irritable bowel syndrome may come together with endometriosis). iii. Describe nociceptive transduction and conduction and how it then leads to the primary afferent pathways involved in nociception -Transduction is needed for producing the generator potential. When a nociceptor (such as TRPV1) is bound (by its ligand capsaicin for example) it will cause a conformational change, and it will open its ion channel allowing for the influx of Na+/ Ca2+ into the nerve terminal. If this influx is sufficient to raise the membrane potential, depolarizing it above threshold of -50mV at the axon hillock, then Na+ voltage gated channels along the membrane of the axon will be triggered. This component is known as transduction. -The later propagation of the action potential by the triggering of voltage-gated Na+ channels is the conduction component. -Primary afferent fibres/ nociceptors in the periphery, receive a high-intensity noxious stimulus, sufficient to overcome their threshold and trigger an AP, via their free nerve endings with receptor channels specific to each modality of pain (thermal, mechanical, chemical). The AP is then conducted through the peripheral axon of the pseudo-unipolar neuron, it will go through its dorsal root ganglion to the superficial layer (lamina 1) of the DH of the spinal cord. Here it immediately synapses the secondary order neuron at the DH, which then decussates passing via the anterior commissure of the spinal cord and will ascend via the anterolateral/ spinothalamic tract to synapse at the VPLN (ventral posterior-lateral nucleus) for discrimination/ localization of pain, which then goes to the primary somatosensory cortex (S1), or via other mid-thalamic nuclei to higher brain regions such as the Insula and anterior cingulate cortex for the affective aspects of pain (quality, intensity, emotion etc). If dealing with visceral pain, will instead go through the parabrachial nucleus then to the VMLN (ventral medio-lateral nucleus) of the brainstem to the insula (limbic system) for interoception. In terms of the cranial pathway, this derives from the 12 cranial nerves not the spinal nerves and will initiate at the brainstem by the NTS (nucleus tractus solitarius) and then go to the parabrachial and then the VMLN and finally to the insula. -Each set of DRG/ spinal nerves innervate a specific receptive field of the skin in the body known as the dermatomes. There are 31 dermatomes corresponding to the 31 spinal nerves and the 31 DRG. The face is not included as it is innervated by the cranial nerves of the trigeminal nerve. The Axon Reflex/ Antidromic Activity in the Periphery: - **Nerve Activation**: When a nociceptive stimulus (such as inflammation) activates free nerve endings, it generates an action potential. This potential typically travels along the axon of the pseudo-unipolar neuron toward the CNS. - **Collateral Branches**: Sensory neurons often have collateral branches that can send signals back toward the site of injury or inflammation. When the action potential reaches these branches, it can propagate antidromically. The axonal structure allows for the propagation of the electrical signal in both directions---toward the cell body and along collaterals. - **Neuropeptide Release**: As the action potential travels antidromically, it can trigger the release of neuropeptides (like substance P and CGRP) from the terminals of the sensory neurons in the periphery. This release contributes to local inflammation, leading to increased blood flow, oedema, and the activation of surrounding nociceptors (e.g.: SP causes release of histamine, a potent vasodilator from mast cells, CGRP also induces vasodilation of surrounding BVs, this vasodilation increases permeability, releasing more inflammatory modulators from the circulation as well as plasma from the blood into the surrounding tissue and ISF which causes oedema). Conditions for Antidromic Activity - **Presence of Inflammatory Stimulus**: The axon reflex is typically more pronounced when there is an inflammatory stimulus. Inflammation sensitizes nociceptors and enhances their excitability (by lowering their activation threshold), making it easier for action potentials to be generated and propagate (e.g.L PGE2/ prostaglandin 2 binding to TRPV1 sensitises them so that whilst normally they are only activated at 43C now they can be activated below body temp at 35C when local blood flow from the inflammation comes in- also worsened by the vasodilatory response). - The axon reflex can occur **even in the absence of pre-existing inflammation,** provided that a sufficiently strong stimulus, such as high concentrations of capsaicin binding to TRPV1 receptors triggering a high-intensity noxious stimulus to create sufficient generator potential for transduction and conduction. Summary of all Pain Pathways 1\. **Ascending Somatic (Spinothalamic/Anterolateral) Pathway - Spinal (Body)**: - Nociceptors (Body) → - 1st synapse: **Dorsal Horn** (Spinal Cord) → - Crosses to the contralateral side in the spinal cord → - Ascends via the **Spinothalamic Tract** (anterolateral system- referring to funiculi)→ Projection options: - 2nd synapse: **VPL (Ventral Posterolateral Nucleus**, Thalamus): Projects to **S1** (Primary Somatosensory Cortex) for discriminative pain (localisation and intensity). This is the **lateral neospinothalamic** tract for **A-d fibres** (fast, sharp, well-localized pain). - 2^nd^ synapse: **Midline Thalamic Nuclei** → **Insula and ACC** for affective/emotional aspects of pain (+ inputs to other widespread cortical regions like hypothalamus for autonomic responses, amygdala for motivation and fear etc). This is the **anterior paleospinothalamic** tract for **C-fibres** (slow, diffuse pain for the affective aspect). This pathway has two sub-divisions: - **Spinoreticular** tract to the reticular formations in the medulla and pons and the PBN in the pons for affective aspect of pain and autonomic pain responses. - **Spinotectal** (spinomesencephalic) tract to the collicular formation and PAG in the midbrain for control of eye and head movement towards painful stimuli and modulation of pain via the descending pathway. **\***So the neospinothalamic doesn't really have any brainstem targets whereas the two branches of the palaeospinothalamic go to varying brainstem targets before going to the midline thalamic nuclei and then the cortex. 2\. **Ascending Somatic Cranial Pathway (Face/Head)**: - Nociceptors (Face/Head) (e.g., from the trigeminal nerve- one of the 12 cranial nerves) → - 1st synapse: Spinal **Trigeminal Nucleus** (Brainstem) → - Crosses to the contralateral side in the brainstem → - Ascends via the Trigeminal Lemniscus → Projection Options: - 2nd synapse: To **VPM (Ventral Posteromedial Nucleus**, Thalamus): Projects to **S1** for discriminative pain (localization and intensity). - 2^nd^ synapse: To **Midline Thalamic Nuclei** → Insula and ACC for **affective/emotional** pain. 3\. **Ascending Visceral Spinal Pathway (Body) + Interoception**: - Visceral Nociceptors (Body Organs) → - 1st synapse: **Dorsal Horn** (Spinal Cord) → - Crosses to the contralateral side in the spinal cord → - Ascends via the Spinothalamic Tract → - 2nd synapse: **VMp** (Ventral Medial Posterior Nucleus, Thalamus): - Primarily projects to **Insula and ACC** for affective pain and interoception. - May have some less defined projections to S1 for discriminative aspects of visceral pain. 4\. **Ascending Visceral Cranial Pathway + Interoception**: - Visceral cranial Nociceptors (e.g., from heart, lungs, gut via vagus/ cranial nerve X nodose ganglion or jugular ganglion) → - 1st synapse: Nucleus of the Solitary Tract **(NTS**, medulla- for nodose but paratrigeminal nucleus for jugular) → - 2nd synapse: Parabrachial Nucleus (**PBN,** pons) → - 3rd synapse: **VMb** (Ventral Medial Basal Nucleus, Thalamus): - Primarily projects to Insula and ACC for affective pain and interoception. - May have some less defined projections to S1 for discriminative aspects of visceral pain. 5\. **Descending Pain Modulation Pathway**: - Cortex (S1, PFC to Hypothalamus and Amygdala) → - 1st synapse: Periaqueductal Gray (ventrolateral **PAG**) in midbrain→ - 2nd synapse: Rostral Ventromedial Medulla (**RVM**) + LC (mid pons), raphe (upper pons), reticular formation (medulla-pons), PBN (pons)→ - 3rd synapse: **Dorsal Horn** (Spinal Cord): - Modulates incoming pain signals at the **first synapse** via descending inhibition (or facilitation), affecting the final perception of pain. **Conclusion**: - The **VPL (ventral posterio** is responsible for processing **discriminative pain** signals from the **body**, projecting to **S1**. - The **VPM** processes **discriminative pain** signals from the **face/head**, also projecting to **S1**. - The **VMp** receives projections from the **ascending visceral spinal pathway**, primarily targeting the **insula** and **ACC** for **affective pain** and **interoception**, with potential less defined projections to **S1**. - The **NTS** serves as the **1st synapse** in the **ascending visceral cranial pathway**, integrating visceral signals, and the **PBN** acts as a relay before projecting to the thalamic nuclei. Then the **VMb** projects to the **insula** and **ACC** for **affective pain** and **interoception**, also having less defined projections to **S1**. ### Combined Lecture Summary: Nociception I & II - Introduction to Pain and Functional Anatomy of Nociceptors ### Learning Objectives - **Differentiate pain and nociception** -Pain is an unpleasant emotional or sensory experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, whilst nociception is the biological sensory processing of the noxious stimulus. Whilst they are often related simple nociception does not result in pain, it is the conscious processing of it by the brain that makes it into a painful experience, only conscious entities can feel pain. Pain has diverse modalities and there are different types of pain such as nociceptive, inflammatory, neuropathic and nociplastic. Furthermore, there are different aspects of pain which involve different pathways mainly the discriminatory/ crude aspect to localize where it is coming from and its intensity, and its affective aspect for the emotional response. Nociception only has one form of processing which is the same basic mode of neuronal transmission. Pain generally serves as a protective/ adaptive role but there are cases in which it becomes maladaptive such as in neuropathic and nociplastic pain, where it no longer serves a useful purpose and can be persistent (chronic) even after the injury has ceased. Pain is moreover different between somatic and visceral pain, whereby somatic is better localised and more pin prick pain, whilst visceral is harder to localise and more diffuse, manifesting as exaggerated autonomic functions (given it is often interlaced with autonomic afferents and normal homeostatic function). - **Define the different types of pain and the role of peripheral sensitization in pain hypersensitivity syndromes** - **Describe the structural features of nociceptors (cell bodies, projections to PNS and CNS) as well as changes to their structure in disease and injury** - **Introduction to the primary afferent pathways involved in nociception** - **Describe nociceptive transduction and conduction processes** - **(In all lectures) use textbook and real data to understand nociceptive processing** #### Definition and Nature of Pain - **Pain** is defined as an unpleasant sensory or emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. It encompasses both sensory and emotive aspects, indicating the need for a neural framework that integrates sensation and emotion. Pain serves a protective function and contributes to learning from damaging experiences, acting as a normal homeostatic process. - **Nociception** refers to the sensory process that detects harmful or potentially harmful stimuli (mechanical, chemical, or thermal). The nociceptive process leads to pain perception, with somatic tissue pain being well-defined, while visceral pain is often diffuse and less specific (e.g., lung damage may manifest as tightness or difficulty breathing rather than localized pain). #### Pain Perception and Dimensions - Pain perception is influenced by factors including cellular damage, receptor stimulation, central nervous system (CNS) input, spinal processing, and neural pathways. There is no specific \"pain nucleus\" in the brain; instead, pain is produced through distributed network activity involving complex higher brain processing, which complicates treatment. - Pain can be understood through multiple dimensions: - **Sensory-discriminative:** Encodes spatial, temporal, and intensity information. - **Motivational-affective:** Involves unpleasantness, anxiety, distress, fear, and depression. The emotional perception of nociceptive stimuli can alter the pain experience (e.g., getting a tattoo can be perceived as pleasant despite the pain). #### Nociceptors and Neural Pathways - Most nociceptors are located in the **dorsal root ganglia (DRG)** (sensory cell body clusters located outside and lining the dorsal root), with some in cranial ganglia serving the face and visceral organs. These neurons have bifurcating axons, with one branch extending to the periphery and the other to the CNS (spinal cord or brainstem). - Each DRG pair innervates a specific body region, corresponding to **dermatomes**. Understanding these dermatomes is clinically significant for tracing pain back to specific nerves and spinal cord areas. 31 spinal nerves for the 31 dermatomes, 30 vertebra. 8 cervical, 12 thoracic, 5 lumbar and 5 sacral + 1 extra. 12 cranial nerves. - Nociceptors possess free nerve endings, responding at high thresholds to avoid constant pain perception. They can be classified based on the speed of signal transmission: - **A-delta fibres:** Lightly myelinated, fast-conducting (\~2-10 m/s), associated with sharp, immediate pain. - **C fibres:** non-myelinated, slow conducting (\~1 m/s), associated with diffuse, aching pain. #### Types of Nociceptors - Nociceptors can be classified by modality: - **Mechanical nociceptors:** Respond to cutting or crushing stimuli. - **Thermal nociceptors:** React to extreme temperature changes (hot or cold). - **Polymodal nociceptors:** Respond to various damaging stimuli, including chemicals. #### Pain Types and Mechanisms 1. **Nociceptive Pain** - **Definition:** [Acute] and protective, caused by direct activation of nociceptors due to tissue damage. - **Mechanism:** Results from acute injury or inflammation, signalling through nociceptors that respond to harmful stimuli. This type of pain serves as a warning system to prevent further injury. 2. **Inflammatory Pain** - **Definition:** Arises from tissue inflammation and increased sensitivity to mildly noxious stimuli, leading to **hyperalgesia** (increased pain response). - **Mechanism:** Inflammatory mediators (e.g., prostaglandins, bradykinin, cytokines) sensitize nociceptors, lowering their activation thresholds. This process involves the **axon reflex**, where peripheral axons release neuropeptides (e.g., Substance P, CGRP) that lead to vasodilation and further inflammation + oedema. 3. **Neuropathic Pain** - **Definition:** Results from nerve damage and does not serve a protective purpose (e.g., phantom limb pain) is maladaptive. - **Mechanism:** Injured neurons can exhibit spontaneous **ectopic firing** and increased branching of nociceptive fibres, causing spontaneous pain or heightened sensitivity (allodynia). 4. Nociplastic pain: pain arising from an unknown source (no detected injury or damage). These cases often involve changes to synaptic plasticity in the CNS leading to central sensitization. This causes mild stimulus to become much more painful (hyperalgesia) or even normally innocuous stimuli to be painful (allodynia). Interactions with glial cells (e.g., astrocytes, microglia) further contribute to pain persistence by releasing inflammatory cytokines and altering neurotransmitter signalling (formation of more gap junctions to transmit more Ca2+ waves and excitatory gliotransmitter release worsening the sensitization). So central sensitization is affected by: overexcitability of C fibres, convergent pathways, in terms of visceral autonomic afferent activity- leading to LTP causing increased NMDA activity, microglia and astrocyte activity changes, and channel expression changes (such as expression of more AMPA and Ca2+ channels on the synaptic membrane). #### Transduction and Conduction Mechanisms - The process of converting stimuli into electrical signals involves **transduction** (ion channel activation leading to depolarization) and **conduction** (propagation of action potentials along axons). - Various receptors, including TRP channels (e.g., TRPV1, TRPA1), mediate transduction for thermal and chemical stimuli. Therapeutic interventions can target either transduction mechanisms (e.g., NSAIDs inhibiting prostaglandins) or conduction pathways (e.g., local anaesthetics such as Naloxone or Lidocaine blocking or others blocking voltage-gated sodium channels). Transduction: activation of nociceptors causing conformational change to induce channel opening allowing Na+ and Ca2+ influx. The combination of all incoming EPSPs and IPSPs from synapses at the axon hillock determines if this depolarization is sufficient to reach membrane threshold at -50mV to trigger an AP. Conduction: if it is sufficient, then the depolarization will trigger voltage-gated sodium channel opening and (wave-like) propagation of the AP along the axon. #### Visualization Techniques - Different neuron types can be visualized using techniques such as **immunohistochemistry**, which labels specific markers (e.g., nociceptors can be stained for TRPV1 or CGRP or SP). - In neuropathic injury, increased branching of nociceptive fibers can be observed, indicating enhanced connectivity and potential maladaptive changes in neuronal networks. They also gain synapses onto the cell body which is not normally seen in DRG. E.g: endometriosis where part of the endometrium starts growing on other pelvic organs forming lesions which are innervated by nociceptors. #### Conclusion - Understanding the distinction between pain and nociception is crucial. Nociception involves the neural encoding of noxious stimuli, while pain is a conscious experience of discomfort. Pain can occur without nociception (e.g., phantom pain or remodelling of the CNS synapses) and nociception can happen without pain (e.g., spinal cord injury or getting a tattoo). Pain experiences are deeply personal and influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors, highlighting the complexity of pain management and treatment strategies. Lecture 15: Nociception III - Phenotyping Nociceptors ----------------------------------------------------- ### Learning Objectives 1. **Define how molecular phenotyping of nociceptor classes was refined using transcriptomics.** Using RNA-seq where get a target tissue sample from DRG, isolate specific nociceptors/ nociceptor subpopulations, extract their mRNA, RT to cDNA, and then can either clone the DNA and put it into vectors to form a cDNA library of all the genes present in that type of cell or sequence it directly. Using bioinformatics unique sets of genes that are expressed in different subclasses of nociceptors can be identified which can reveal their similarities in phenotype and function, such as their specific modality (thermal/mechanoreceptive/chemical etc). Once the transcriptome of the subtypes is determined they can then target individual genes and apply them into animal models to test their function. 2. **Describe how the phenotype and pain of nociceptors changes across development and maturation.** 3. **Compare the neurobiology of pain in rodents and humans** **1. Refining Molecular Phenotyping of Nociceptor Classes Using Transcriptomics** **Understanding Nociceptors:** - Nociceptors are sensory neurons that detect harmful stimuli. They are classified based on myelination, conduction velocity, and response characteristics, including A-delta fibres (myelinated, sharp pain) and C fibres (unmyelinated, dull pain). **Advancements in Phenotyping:** - **RNA Sequencing (RNA-seq):** - RNA-seq is a high-throughput technique that allows for the comprehensive analysis of gene expression profiles in individual nociceptors. By dissociating tissues and isolating specific cell types from the dorsal root ganglia (DRG), researchers can identify distinct nociceptor classes based on their transcriptional profiles. - For example, in a study examining the DRG of rodents, 11 different electrophysiological neuronal classes were identified, with some expressing unique ion channels (e.g., TRPA1, TRPV1). This molecular characterization aids in understanding how specific nociceptors contribute to pain perception and potential targets for therapeutic interventions. **Challenges in Classifying Nociceptors:** - While DRGs are relatively accessible in rodents, classifying spinal cord targets is more complex due to the diverse neuronal populations present. Understanding the connectivity of these neurons is essential for elucidating nociceptive pathways. **2. The Changing Phenotype of Nociceptors and Pain During Development and Maturation** **Developmental Differences:** - Pediatric pain is often underdiagnosed due to the complexity of pain pathways during development. Some brain regions and sensory pathways mature at different rates, complicating the understanding of pain in children and adolescents. For example brachial plexus injury in infants doesn't cause pain. **Key Contributors to Pain Development:** - **Nociceptor Specification:** - DRGs develop from the neural crest, where specific transcription factors (TFs) and neurotrophic factors play crucial roles. For instance, **Nerve Growth Factor (NGF)** is a key neurotrophin that supports the survival and differentiation of nociceptors. - **TrkA Receptor:** NGF binds to the TrkA receptor on nociceptors, activating signaling pathways that promote neuron growth (at terminal via), differentiation, and survival (anti-apoptotic at soma via PI3K/ Erk1/2 and then intrinsic path activation). This interaction is critical for the development of nociceptive pathways and the response to noxious stimuli. - **Transduction Mechanisms:** - Nociceptor axons project to peripheral tissues and the spinal cord, establishing basic nociceptive functions. TRP channels are expressed at birth and mediate responses to noxious stimuli, but the electrical signaling properties of nociceptors mature postnatally (axons become thicker and more myelinated). - **Spinal Mechanisms:** - Nociceptor axons target specific spinal cord laminae, establishing connections characteristic of each sensory class. As the nervous system matures, changes occur in receptor expression and synaptic transmission mechanisms. For example, GABA may act as an excitatory neurotransmitter in developing systems, influencing pain signaling pathways. **Understanding Pain Perception:** - Pain perception involves the maturation of spinal projections to the brain, impacting thalamocortical connectivity and cortical activity. This maturation helps distinguish between nociception and the subjective experience of pain. - Early exposure to tissue injury or inflammation can lead to long-lasting hypersensitivity and increase the likelihood of chronic pain in adulthood (in development NS is still a lot more plastic so easier repair mechanisms). \*To test if it is pain can expose to acute noxious stimulus like needle in foot or blood sample and see what fMRI areas are being activated. QST (quantitative sensory testing) on humans with different modalities. Facial expression is unreliable. **3. Comparing the Neurobiology of Pain in Rodents and Humans** **Ethical Considerations:** - Researching pain mechanisms in humans is constrained by ethical considerations. Various methods allow for mechanistic insights into human pain states while adhering to ethical guidelines. **Approaches to Study Human Nociception:** - **Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs):** - iPSCs can be derived from adult somatic cells and differentiated into nociceptors. This technique allows researchers to study human nociceptor characteristics, including ion channel expression and signaling mechanisms. - **Skin Biopsies:** - Skin biopsies can be performed to obtain samples of peripheral nociceptors. These samples can be analyzed for changes in receptor expression and pain signaling pathways, providing insights into conditions such as neuropathic pain. - **Immunohistochemistry (IHC):** - IHC is a technique that uses antibodies to detect specific proteins in tissue sections. This method allows researchers to visualize the distribution and expression levels of nociceptor-related proteins, helping to elucidate the molecular changes associated with pain conditions. - **Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST):** - QST assesses sensory function by applying standardized stimuli (e.g., pressure, temperature) to evaluate pain thresholds and responses. This technique helps characterize sensory processing and identify abnormalities in pain perception. \*Confocal corneal microscopy (as nociceptors here are the most exposed in the body), tissue samples (from donors and then can use histology/ molecular profiling), biopsies (such as small muscle biopsy), HiPScs converted to nociceptors to then be analysed in vitro for mechanisms and signalling, QST. Mostly periphery oriented, hard to study visceral pain. Also, hard to interpret these observations in the context of a complete neural circuit. Have to weight with ethical considerations. Often take iPSCs from people with conditions like epilepsy, identify the mutation and then use that as a therapeutic target to try and come up with ways to improve the condition. **Key Findings:** - Comparative studies reveal differences between human and rodent nociceptors, including the greater presence of glial cells in humans and variations in ion channel expression (different ratios of different receptor subtypes between them). - Rodent models using toxins or genetic modifications can mimic human pain conditions, allowing for insights into the underlying mechanisms of chronic pain. **Conclusion:** - While numerous methods exist for studying human nociception, interpreting these findings in the context of intact neural circuits remains a significant challenge. Ongoing research aims to enhance our understanding of nociceptor functionality and pain mechanisms across species. **Integrated Explanation of Central Sensitization, Referred Pain, and Afferent Pathways** **Central Sensitization**\ Central sensitization refers to the increased excitability and responsiveness of central nervous system (CNS) neurons following the convergence of multiple afferent pathways. This heightened sensitivity can arise from various mechanisms, not limited to just two converging nociceptive pathways. 1. **Converging Afferent Pathways**: Central sensitization occurs when different types of afferent fibers (nociceptive and non-nociceptive) converge onto the same second-order neurons in the spinal cord (sharing the same dermatome given have to end up at the same DRG). This convergence can include visceral nociceptive afferents, somatic nociceptive afferents, and even autonomic afferents. Although autonomic afferents are not nociceptive, they can influence the excitability of nociceptive pathways by modulating the overall environment of the dorsal horn, potentially lowering the threshold for pain signalling. 2. **Dichotomizing Afferents**: These afferents can be characterized by their ability to transmit information from different regions of the body. When a single afferent neuron branches out (dichotomizes) to supply multiple organs or tissues, the nociceptive input from one area can sensitize the response in another area. This can lead to cross-organ sensitization, where the presence of pain in one organ or region can amplify pain sensitivity in another. **Referred Pain**\ Referred pain occurs when pain is perceived in a location that is different from the actual source of injury or damage. This phenomenon arises due to the convergence of nociceptive signals from different anatomical regions onto the same spinal cord neurons, which can lead to confusion in pain localization. 1. **Types of Convergence**: Referred pain can occur between different types of nociceptive pathways: - **Visceral to Visceral**: Pain from one organ can be felt in another organ. - **Visceral to Somatic**: Pain from a visceral organ (e.g., heart) may be felt in a somatic area (e.g., left arm). - **Somatic to Somatic**: Pain from one skin area may be referred to another skin area. **Cross-Organ Sensitization**\ Cross-organ sensitization refers to the phenomenon where the pain experience in one organ or tissue sensitizes the pain response in another. This can occur through: - **Dichotomizing Afferents**: As described, where a single afferent supplies multiple regions. - **Shared Neural Pathways**: Where nociceptive input from one area enhances the excitability of neurons responding to input from another area, regardless of whether those areas are visceral or somatic. **Influence of Autonomic Pathways**\ Autonomic afferents, while not nociceptive, can also play a role in pain modulation: - They can influence the overall excitability of nociceptive pathways in the spinal cord, affecting how pain is processed. - This interaction can contribute to central sensitization, further complicating the pain experience. - This influence occurs both directly and indirectly. 1. **Direct Influence**: Autonomic afferents can activate visceral nociceptive neurons in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, increasing the input to second-order neurons. This direct activation can enhance pain signaling from the visceral organ. 2. **Indirect Influence**: Autonomic activity can promote peripheral sensitization at the injury site, leading to inflammation and increased sensitivity of the nociceptive afferents. This is compounded by the axon reflex, where signals propagate along the afferent pathway to neighbouring tissues, further enhancing sensitivity and pain perception. ### 1. **Central Sensitization of Second-Order Neurons** - **Prolonged or intense stimulation of nociceptors** (first-order neurons in the periphery) causes increased release of neurotransmitters like glutamate and substance P in the dorsal horn. - Repeated or excessive activation of second-order neurons in the DH, which relay signals to the brain, leads to their **sensitization**. This sensitization lowers their activation threshold, meaning they now respond more strongly to normal or even non-painful stimuli. ### 2. **Increased Excitability of Second-Order Neurons** - Once second-order neurons become sensitized, they are in a state of **hyperexcitability**. This means that smaller, non-noxious stimuli (such as touch or mild pressure) can cause an exaggerated response, which is experienced as **pain** (a phenomenon known as **allodynia**). - Additionally, noxious stimuli, which previously would have caused moderate pain, are now perceived as **severe pain** (secondary hyperalgesia). ### 3. **Expansion of Receptive Fields** - **Receptive fields** are the specific areas from which neurons receive input. Normally, second-order neurons in the dorsal horn only process pain signals from a limited area of the body. - During central sensitization, the receptive fields of second-order neurons can **expand**. This means that neurons which originally only processed inputs from a small region may now respond to signals from neighbouring, uninjured areas. As a result, pain is felt in these surrounding areas (even though they are not directly injured), contributing to **secondary hyperalgesia**. ### 4. **Recruitment of Nearby Neurons** - Sensitization in the dorsal horn also leads to **synaptic plasticity** (changes in synaptic strength), where nearby second-order neurons that were previously less active may become involved in the pain signaling process. - **Spillover of excitatory neurotransmitters** like glutamate from excessively stimulated neurons can cause activation of adjacent neurons. These neurons may not have been involved in the initial injury but now contribute to the spread of pain. - This recruitment of nearby neurons amplifies the overall pain signal, making the pain sensation more intense and widespread. - Alternatively, already sensitized secondary neuron, may become more responsive to signalling from neighbouring synapses which strengthens its pain signal to the brain. ### 5. **Descending Inhibition Breakdown** - Normally, there are descending pathways from the brain that **inhibit** excessive pain signals in the spinal cord. During central sensitization, these inhibitory pathways may be impaired or overwhelmed, allowing pain signals to persist and intensify without being properly dampened. The inhibitory opioidergic neurons in the DH may become overwhelmed and reduce their release of opioids onto the projection neurons (receptors on these interneurons may also become sensitized or downregulated/ internalised). ### 6. **Long-Term Potentiation (LTP) in the Dorsal Horn** - Central sensitization is similar to a form of synaptic plasticity known as **long-term potentiation (LTP)**, where repeated stimulation leads to the strengthening of synapses between first-order nociceptors and second-order neurons (usually occurs by repeated signalling of C fibres, not so common with A-d). - This LTP-like mechanism in the dorsal horn contributes to the prolonged hypersensitivity to pain, even after the initial injury or inflammation has resolved. 1. **Primary Hyperalgesia**: - **Definition**: Increased sensitivity to pain at the site of tissue injury or inflammation. - **Cause**: Due to **peripheral sensitization**, where nociceptors in the injured area become more sensitive due to local inflammation and chemical mediators. - **Area affected**: The **injured** or **inflamed** area. - **Mechanism**: Involves changes in nociceptors, leading to an exaggerated response to noxious stimuli. 2. **Secondary Hyperalgesia**: - **Definition**: Increased sensitivity to pain in areas surrounding the site of injury or inflammation, where there is no direct damage. - **Cause**: Due to **central sensitization** in the spinal cord or brain, where second-order neurons in the dorsal horn become more responsive to pain signals. - **Area affected**: The **uninjured** surrounding region. - **Mechanism**: Involves changes in central nervous system processing, leading to an expansion of the pain perception area. 3. **Primary Allodynia**: - **Definition**: Pain in response to normally **non-painful stimuli** (like touch) at the site of injury or inflammation. - **Cause**: Due to **peripheral sensitization**, where local nociceptors are more reactive, responding to stimuli that wouldn't usually cause pain. - **Area affected**: The **injured** or **inflamed** area. - **Mechanism**: Altered threshold of nociceptors causing them to respond to non-noxious stimuli. 4. **Secondary Allodynia**: - **Definition**: Pain in response to normally **non-painful stimuli** in areas surrounding the site of injury, where there is no direct damage. - **Cause**: Due to **central sensitization**, where increased excitability in the CNS leads to pain from non-nociceptive input. - **Area affected**: The **uninjured** surrounding region. - **Mechanism**: Central nervous system changes cause normally non-painful stimuli (like light touch) to be perceived as painful in distant areas (touch afferent can synapse onto sensitized secondary neuron, also synapsed by nociceptor and will be interpreted as painful even if innocuous stimulus). - **Primary** hyperalgesia/allodynia occurs **at the injury site** due to **peripheral sensitization**. - **Secondary** hyperalgesia/allodynia occurs in the **surrounding uninjured areas** due to **central sensitization**. ### ### Lecture 16: Nociception IV - Visceral Sensation and Pain #### 1. Visceral Sensation and Visceral Pain - Visceral sensory nerves include A-delta (A-d) and C fiber classes. These nerves are crucial for normal autonomic functions and maintaining homeostasis (e.g., coughing, swallowing, vomiting, bladder voiding). They also play a role in nociceptive processing. - These sensory pathways interact with the immune system, contributing to symptoms like fever during infections and inflammation. - Visceral sensations differ from somatic sensations in that they have distinct adequate stimuli, such as distension of hollow organs, traction of the mesentery, ischemia, and inflammatory mediators. Many analgesics effective for somatic pain (e.g., skin, skeletal muscle) do not alleviate visceral pain, indicating biological differences. - Our understanding of visceral pain is less developed than that of somatic pain. There is no specific set of molecules that clearly defines visceral neurons, complicating their identification in extracts. - Most visceral sensory activity occurs without conscious perception. Extreme damage to organs or nerves may go unnoticed to prevent overwhelming the brain with signals (like those from airway function). Unique sensations such as bloating, nausea, and urgency have specific vocabulary, and visceral sensation tends to be diffuse and poorly localized. #### 2. Cranial Visceral Sensory Pathways - Visceral afferents from organs in the head, thoracic, and abdominal cavities primarily travel via the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X), which is 80% sensory. - Sensory input from the vagus originates in the nodose and jugular ganglia. These ganglia differ in embryonic origin, molecular properties, and functions. - **Nodose Ganglion**: Largest, arising from ectodermal placodes; projects to the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS) for autonomic functions. - **Jugular Ganglion**: Smallest, originating from neural crest; projects to the paratrigeminal nucleus. #### 3. Spinal Visceral Sensory Pathways - All visceral inputs terminate in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. A-d nociceptive fibers synapse in the most superficial layer of the dorsal root, while other somatosensory A-d fibers descend into deeper layers. - No visceral pathways exist in the lumbar enlargement (primarily controlling limbs). However, sacral regions show parasympathetic preganglionic neurons. - Differentiation between visceral and somatic fibers is challenging due to their intermingling. Techniques like intramural microinjection of \"transganglionic\" neural tracers (e.g., CTB) help identify visceral afferents and trace their spinal cord innervation patterns. #### 4. Organ -- Sensory Nerve Communication - Visceral organs receive innervation from both cranial and spinal sensory neurons, with each organ typically innervated by two sources. For example, the heart has afferents from the vagus nerve and cervical/thoracic spinal nerves. - Both sources contain nociceptive and non-nociceptive neurons. The interaction between nociceptive afferents and autonomic pathways complicates pain targeting, as nociceptive signals often influence normal autonomic functions, leading to exaggerated responses (e.g., increased heart rate during pain). #### 5. Complex Visceral Pain States - **Sensitization**: A state characterized by increased response magnitude and decreased threshold, often leading to visceral hypersensitivity. Organ inflammation can heighten responses to distension. - Visceral pain frequently elicits strong autonomic and emotional responses (e.g., decreased blood pressure, slow pulse, cold sweat, nausea). - **Referred Pain**: Visceral pain is often felt in areas distant from the source due to shared neural pathways. For instance, heart pain may be referred to the left arm or shoulder, as visceral afferents converge with somatic afferents in the dorsal horn. #### Signal Integration in the Dorsal Horn - Both visceral and somatic afferents synapse onto the same second-order neurons in the dorsal horn, allowing signal integration. - If a visceral organ is injured, the corresponding afferents activate and send nociceptive signals to the spinal cord. If these signals converge with non-nociceptive somatic inputs, the dorsal horn neurons can misinterpret the source of pain. - **Central Sensitization**: Increased excitability of spinal neurons can lead to pain perception from multiple organs. When one organ is in pain, the interconnected pathways can heighten sensitivity, causing the brain to perc

Complex Functions in Neuroscience Essay Question Practice PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue