1,721,137 research outputs found

    History of Spinal Cord “Pain” Pathways Including the Pathways Not Taken

    Full text link
    Traditional medical neuroanatomy/neurobiology textbooks teach that pain is generated by several ascending pathways that course in the anterolateral quadrant of the spinal cord, including the spinothalamic, spinoreticular and spinoparabrachial tracts. The textbooks also teach, building upon the mid-19th century report of Brown-Séquard, that unilateral cordotomy, namely section of the anterolateral quadrant, leads to contralateral loss of pain (and temperature). In many respects, however, this simple relationship has not held up. Most importantly, pain almost always returns after cordotomy, indicating that activation of these so-called "pain" pathways may be sufficient to generate pain, but they are not necessary. Indeed, Brown-Séquard, based on his own studies, eventually came to the same conclusion. But his new view of "pain" pathways was largely ignored, and certainly did not forestall Spiller and Martin's 1912 introduction of cordotomy to treat patients. This manuscript reviews the history of "pain" pathways that followed from the first description of the Brown-Séquard Syndrome and concludes with a discussion of multisynaptic spinal cord ascending circuits. The latter, in addition to the traditional oligosynaptic "pain" pathways, may be critical to the transmission of "pain" messages, not only in the intact spinal cord but also particularly after injury

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore