Magnetosensory function in rats: Localization using positron emission tomography

Synapse

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 421-428

  Frilot II, Clifton ^a   Carrubba, Simona ^a   Marino, Andrew A ^b  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^b Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport   (United States)

Author keywords

Cerebellum; Electromagnetic fields; Evoked potentials; Nonlinear analysis; Small animal imaging

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BRAIN METABOLISM; BRAIN SIZE; CEREBELLUM; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; EVOKED MAGNETOSENSORY RESPONSE; EVOKED SOMATOSENSORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; GLUCOSE UTILIZATION; NEUROIMAGING; NONHUMAN; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; STIMULUS RESPONSE;

ANIMALS; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY; REACTION TIME; SENSATION;

EID: 60249100308     PISSN: 08874476     EISSN: 10982396     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/syn.20619     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Berg G, Spallek J, Schüz J, Schlehofer B, Böhler E, Schlaefer K, Hettinger I, Kunna-Grass K, Wahrendorf W, Blettner M, Interphone Study Group G. 2006. Occupational exposure to radio frequency/microwave radiation and the risk of brain tumors: Interphone Study Group. Germany. Am J Epidemiol 164:538-548.
2. Bueti D, Walsh V, Frith C, Rees G. 2008. Different brain circuits underlie motor and perceptual representations of temporal intervals. J Cogn Neurosci 20:204-214.
3. Carrubba S, Frilot C, Chesson A, Marino A. 2006. Detection of nonlinear event-related potentials. J Neurosci Meth 157:39-47.
4. Carrubba S, Frilot C, Chesson AL Jr, Marino AA. 2007. Evidence of a nonlinear human magnetic sense. Neuroscience 144:356-367.
5. Carrubba S, Frilot C, Chesson AL Jr, Webber CL Jr, Zbilut JP, Marino AA. 2008. Magnetosensory evoked potentials: Consistent nonlinear phenomena. Neurosci Res 60:95-105.
6. Eckmann J-P, Kamphorst SO, Ruelle D. 1987. Recurrence plots of dynamical systems. Europhys Lett 4:973-979.
7. He J. 2002. Responses in the auditory thalamus of the guinea pig. J Neurophysiol 88:2377-2386.
8. Ioannides AA, Fenwick PB. 2005. Imaging cerebellum activity in real time with magnetoencephalographic data. Prog Brain Res 148:139-150.
9. Lutz A, Lachaux JP, Martinerie J, Varela FJ. 2002. Guiding the study of brain dynamics by using first-person data: Synchrony patterns correlate with ongoing conscious states during a simple visual task. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 99:1586-1591.
10. Marino AA, Nilsen E, Frilot C. 2002. Consistent magnetic-field induced changes in brain activity detected by recurrence quantification analysis. Brain Res 951:301-310.
11. Marino AA, Nilsen E, Frilot C. 2003. Localization of electroreceptive function in rabbits. Phys Behav 79:803-810.
12. McPherson DL. 1996. Late potentials of the auditory system. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
13. O'Carroll MJ, Henshaw DL. 2008. Aggregating disparate epidemiological evidence: Comparing two seminal EMF reviews. Risk Anal 28:225-234.
14. Olden K. 1999. Health effects from exposure to power-line frequency electric and magnetic fields. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. NIH Publication No. 99-4493. http://www.niehs.gov/health/docs/niehs- report.pdf
15. Petacchi A, Laird AR, Fox PT, Bower JM. 2005. Cerebellum and auditory function: An ALE meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Hum Brain Mapp 25:118-128.
16. Restuccia D, Della Marca G, Valeriani M, Leggio MG, Molinari M. 2007. Cerebellar damage impairs detection of somatosensory input changes. A somatosensory mismatch-negativity study. Brain Res 130:276-287.
17. Saab CY, Willis WD. 2003. The cerebellum: Organization, functions and its role in nociception. Brain Res Rev 42:85-95.
18. Schweinhardt P, Fransson P, Olson L, Spenger C, Andersson JLR. 2003. A template for spatial normalisation of MR images of the rat brain. J Neurosci Meth 129:105-113.
19. Shimoji K, Ravasi L, Schmidt K, Soto-Montenegro ML, Esaki T, Seidel J, Jagoda E, Sokoloff L, Green MV, Eckelman WC. 2004. Measurement of cerebral glucose metabolic rates in the anesthetized rat by dynamic scanning with 18F-FDG, the ATLAS small animal PET scanner, and arterial blood sampling. J Nucl Med 45:665-672.
20. Sonnier H, Marino AA. 2001. Sensory transduction as a proposed model for biological detection of electromagnetic fields. Electrobiol Magnetobiol 20:153-175.
21. Takahashi H, Nakao M, Kaga K. 2004. Cortical mapping of auditory-evoked offset responses in rats. Neuroreport 15:1565-1569.
22. Van Campen LE, Hall JW III, Grantham DW. 1997. Human offset auditory brainstem response: Effects of stimulus acoustic ringing and rise-fall time. Hearing Res 103:35-46.
23. Villeneuve PJ, Agnew DA, Johnson KC, Mao Y, Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. 2002. Brain cancer and occupational exposure to magnetic fields among men: Results from a Canadian population-based case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 31:210-217.
24. Worsley KJ, Evans AC, Marrett S, Neelin P. 1992. A three-dimensional statistical analysis for CBF activation studies in human brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 12:900-918.
25. Zbilut JP, Webber JCL. 2006. Recurrence quantification analysis. In: Akay M, editor. Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering. Hoboken: Wiley. p 2979-2986.